Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra
Which one, when
Choose claude-opus-5 for lower costs, as it charges exactly half the rate of gpt-6-astra for standard input at $5 and output at $25, while cache reads are a quarter of the price at $0.5. Both models share a 128000 maximum output limit and support image inputs, but gpt-6-astra offers a larger 1050000 context window compared to 1000000. Select gpt-6-astra if you require that expanded context capacity or its newer 2026-09-03 release date.
Benchmarks
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-6 Astra | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5 | $10 | 0.5× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25 | $50 | 0.5× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $1 | 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 68 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-6 Astra | |
|---|---|---|
| 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-6 Astra | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-09-03 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-05 | 2026-04 |
| 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-6 Astra
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-6 Astra passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model do more work per request, often generating internal reasoning tokens that are billed even though they do not appear in the final answer. If traffic, model choice, and pricing stayed the same, those extra tokens likely explain why our bill doubled—not longer answers or more users. We should verify the usage breakdown, then reserve higher reasoning levels for tasks where improved results justify the added cost.
out 283 tok (+196 thinking) latency 17.2 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-6 Astra 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 code counts equal adjacent pairs rather than items, so every nonempty run is undercounted by one: a single-element input returns `0`, and a run of three equal items returns `2`. Starting and resetting `cur` to `1` counts the first item of each run, while the empty-input check preserves a result of `0`. Updating `best` after each iteration includes runs ending at the last index without needing a final flush; the original also updated during trailing runs, but undercounted them.
out 321 tok (+131 thinking) latency 13.5 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-6 Astra passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance is withheld pending the "
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "Formal guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close." }
out 329 tok (+267 thinking) latency 16.9 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-6 Astra passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Cross Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses eligible prompt content across supported AI providers. Why pay to process the same context every time? Configure caching once at the gateway, then route requests between models while keeping shared instructions, reference material, and conversation prefixes ready for reuse. Caching controls let teams set expiration windows, isolate tenants, and exclude sensitive content. Cache analytics show hit rates, estimated savings, and latency trends, helping developers tune performance with confidence. Existing routing policies continue to work, so adoption fits your current architecture. Start with a single application, measure the results, and expand as needed. Available today in the dashboard and API, with documentation and examples to guide your first deployment.
out 665 tok (+516 thinking) latency 19.3 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-6-astra", # 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-6-astra", // 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-6-astra", # 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-6-astra", // 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-6-astra") // 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-6 Astra?
Claude Opus 5 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($5 vs $10, 2.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Opus 5 against GPT-6 Astra 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-6 Astra 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.