Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Terra
Which one, when
Up to 272000 input tokens, gpt-6.1-terra halves input and output prices; above 272000 input tokens, input prices match and its output remains cheaper. gpt-6.1-terra can turn reasoning off; choose claude-sonnet-5-5 for an Anthropic adaptive-thinking workflow your evaluations justify.
Pricing
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $2 | $1 | 2× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $10 | $5 | 2× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.05 | 2× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x (30m) / 2.5x (12h) | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 80 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit + explicit |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | at least 30m by default, 12h option on the Responses API |
| Minimum cached prefix | 512 tokens | 1,024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-28 | 2026-10-26 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | 2026-06 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type | reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| reasoning.effort
|
| Default | adaptive, effort high | 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 Sonnet 5.5 · GPT-6.1 Terra
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.
out 205 tok latency 3.6 s
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning caused the model to process additional internal tokens before producing each answer, even though those tokens are not visible to users. Those tokens are generally billable, increasing the cost per request and potentially doubling the bill even if usage stayed the same. To confirm the cause, compare request counts, model pricing, and token usage—including reasoning tokens—before and after the change.
out 196 tok (+115 thinking) latency 4.6 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases
**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]
out 444 tok latency 6.7 s
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if len(xs) == 0: 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 counted matching *adjacent pairs* rather than items, so every nonempty run was undercounted by one, including a single-element input. It did update `best` for matches at the last index, but still undercounted those runs. The fix starts each run at length one and updates `best` as the run grows.
out 331 tok (+172 thinking) latency 6.3 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.
out 300 tok latency 3.5 s
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" }
out 317 tok (+261 thinking) latency 6.9 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.
out 266 tok latency 3.8 s
GPT-6.1 Terra passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Meet Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompts across providers, helping teams reduce latency and control costs without changing how they build. When a request matches a cached prompt, the gateway retrieves the stored result instead of sending the same work again. Need to route traffic between models or vendors? Prompt Cache works across supported providers, giving your applications a consistent caching layer as your stack evolves. Set expiration policies, monitor cache performance, and choose which requests qualify through familiar gateway controls. Your team can spend less time repeating requests and more time improving the experiences customers rely on. Start using Prompt Cache today and make every request work harder for your application and your budget.
out 579 tok (+440 thinking) latency 9.1 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-sonnet-5-5",
# model="gpt-6.1-terra", # 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-sonnet-5-5",
// model: "gpt-6.1-terra", // 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-sonnet-5-5",
# "model": "gpt-6.1-terra", # 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-sonnet-5-5",
// Model: "gpt-6.1-terra", // 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-sonnet-5-5")
// .model("gpt-6.1-terra") // 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 Sonnet 5.5 or GPT-6.1 Terra?
GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($1 vs $2, 2.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Sonnet 5.5 against GPT-6.1 Terra without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-6.1 Terra support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache 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.