Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
These two line up closely: both take text and image in, return text, cap output at 128000 tokens, and charge $5 per million input tokens with $0.5 cached reads, so the split is on the output side, where claude-opus-5 bills $25 per million against $30 for gpt-5.6-sol, a 1.2x difference on generated tokens. Pick claude-opus-5 for long, output-heavy reasoning work, where its explicit thinking capability and later 2026-05 knowledge cutoff help; pick gpt-5.6-sol if you want the slightly larger 1050000-token context or its declared vision handling. Either can turn thinking off.
Pricing
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5 | $5 | = |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25 | $30 | 0.83× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.5 | = |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | no separate charge | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | 5–10m, up to 1h |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-05 | 2026-02 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter |
| reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
effort
| reasoning.effort
|
| Default | thinking on effort
| medium |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Opus 5 · GPT-5.6 Sol
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
Claude Opus 5 passed · 3 sentences
When reasoning is enabled, the model generates a hidden chain of "thinking" tokens before it writes the visible answer, and those internal tokens are billed at the output rate even though no one ever sees them — commonly 3–10x more tokens than the response itself. Because output tokens are priced several times higher than input tokens, that added volume hits us at our most expensive rate, which is why the bill roughly doubled while our request count stayed flat. The spend is controllable: we can cap the reasoning budget per call, route only genuinely hard requests to reasoning mode and cheaper models for the rest, and track cost per successfully completed task rather than cost per token, since a single correct answer usually beats three cheap retries plus human cleanup.
out 529 tok latency 9.0 s
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes more billable compute. Reasoning may also increase response length, latency, tool calls, and retries, further raising per-request cost. In short, usage volume may be unchanged, but the cost per task increased enough to double the bill.
out 111 tok (+34 thinking) latency 2.3 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 8/8 cases
## Fixed version ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` ## The bug The counters were tracking the wrong quantity: `cur` counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *elements in the current run*, and both counters started at `0` instead of `1`. Since a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* adjacent equal pairs, every result came back one too small — `[1, 1]` returned 1, `[3, 3, 3]` returned 2 — and a single-element list returned 0 because the loop body never executed and `best` kept its initial value of `0`. […]
out 1094 tok latency 16.1 s
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original function counted equal *adjacencies* rather than items, so a run of length one produced `0` and every longer run was undercounted by one. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` for nonempty input makes them represent item counts, resetting `cur` to `1` starts a new run at the current item, and updating `best` on every iteration ensures a run reaching the final index is included.
out 316 tok (+135 thinking) latency 5.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: - **quarter**: "September quarter" is labeled Q3 because the text refers to an upcoming "Q4 close," implying a calendar-aligned fiscal year. No fiscal year is given. - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is stated as constant-currency and hedged ("call it"), so it's approximate; the currency is not explicitly stated as USD. - **growth_pct**: "up eleven and change" means slightly more than 11, so 11 is a floor rather than an exact figure.
out 539 tok latency 7.6 s
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":"11+","guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 194 tok (+147 thinking) latency 3.2 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** We're introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in the API Gateway. Repeated system prompts, long documents, and few-shot examples are stored once at the gateway layer and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Instead of paying full input token costs on every request, your application sends a cache reference, and the gateway rehydrates the context before forwarding it downstream. Why does that matter? Teams running high-volume agents and retrieval pipelines typically see input token spend fall 40 to 70 percent, with median latency dropping by several hundred milliseconds. Caches are scoped per project, encrypted at rest, and invalidated automatically when a prompt template changes. Enable it with a single header, and see the docs for TTL tuning and per-route controls.
out 1593 tok latency 19.1 s
GPT-5.6 Sol passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, we’re introducing Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses prompt prefixes across supported AI providers, reducing latency, token costs, and duplicated processing. Teams can define cache policies once, route requests dynamically, and preserve provider flexibility without rewriting application logic. Switching models during testing or failover? The gateway identifies eligible prompt segments, applies provider-specific caching controls, and reports hits, misses, savings, and expiration details through unified logs and metrics. Configurable TTLs, tenant isolation, encryption, and cache-bypass options help teams balance performance, privacy, and freshness for every workload. Provider Prompt Cache is available today in beta through the dashboard and API, with SDK examples and migration guidance included. […]
out 733 tok (+564 thinking) latency 7.7 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-opus-5",
# model="gpt-5.6-sol", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-opus-5",
// model: "gpt-5.6-sol", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-opus-5",
# "model": "gpt-5.6-sol", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-opus-5",
// Model: "gpt-5.6-sol", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-opus-5")
// .model("gpt-5.6-sol") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
They list the same input / 1m tokens ($5), so price does not decide this one — see the specs and capabilities below.
Can I A/B test Claude Opus 5 against GPT-5.6 Sol without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.