Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
何時用哪一個
這兩者在規格上十分相似：皆接受文字與圖像輸入、回傳文字、輸出上限為 128,000 個 token，並且保持開啟思考功能，claude-opus-5-5 具備 1,000,000 個 token 的上下文視窗，而 gpt-6.1-sol 則為 1,050,000。最明顯的分野在於定價表：gpt-6.1-sol 的輸入為 $2、輸出為 $10，對比 claude-opus-5-5 的 $4 與 $20，兩端皆剛好是一半，外加 $0.1 對比 $0.2 的快取讀取。若考量規模化成本，請選擇 gpt-6.1-sol；若您需要該系列及其較晚的 2026-06 知識截止日期，請選擇 Anthropic 定位於長期執行的代理型程式設計與知識工作的 claude-opus-5-5。
Benchmark 成績
GPT-6.1 Sol:廠商沒有公布過 benchmark 成績。
廠商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Z.ai
定價
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $4 | $2 | 2× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $20 | $10 | 2× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.1 | 2× |
| 快取寫入 | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 不額外計費 | - |
費率取自建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。
它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下，所有 76 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格（對數尺度）
能力
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 常駐開啟 | 常駐開啟 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示快取 | 顯式（由您標記前綴） | 隱式（自動） |
| 快取生命週期 | 5m default, 1h option | 5-10m, up to 1h |
| 最小快取前綴 | 1024 個 token | 1024 個 token |
規格
| Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 影像 | 文字 影像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-29 |
| 知識截止日期 | 2026-06 | 2026-04 |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 1.1M |
| 最大輸出 | 128K | 128K |
| 思考參數 | output_config.effort | reasoning.effort |
| 可接受的值 | output_config.effort
| reasoning.effort
|
| 預設值 | medium | medium |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略，而非自行推測。 完整來源： Claude Opus 5.5 · GPT-6.1 Sol
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 3 sentences
When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.
輸出 263 tok (+102 思考) 延遲 5.7 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model do more computational work before answering, and many providers bill the resulting reasoning tokens even though users never see them. That means the same number of requests can cost twice as much because each request consumes more billable tokens, even if the visible answers stay the same length. We should confirm the increase in our usage breakdown and reserve higher reasoning levels for tasks where the improvement justifies the added cost.
輸出 144 tok (+54 思考) 延遲 6.6 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可數）、受眾適配（面向 CFO 的語氣），以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 8/8 cases
```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 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]
輸出 723 tok (+303 思考) 延遲 10.4 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 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 counts equal adjacent pairs rather than items in a run: a run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal pairs, so a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index is also undercounted. It does process the last index, so the issue is not a missing final check. Initializing each nonempty run to `1` and updating `best` after every iteration correctly counts items, including singleton and trailing runs; empty inputs still return `0`.
輸出 189 tok 延遲 6.3 s
修復是否真的正確（可執行）、解釋的資訊密度，以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.
輸出 829 tok (+488 思考) 延遲 10.9 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" }
輸出 345 tok (+285 思考) 延遲 10.2 s
schema 服從度（不臆造欄位）、幻覺壓力（guidance 明確被暫緩給出），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.
輸出 1263 tok (+1007 思考) 延遲 13.5 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompts and manages caching across your supported AI providers. Why rebuild the same context every time your application switches models? With one configuration, teams can reuse shared instructions, standardize cache policies, and reduce repeated prompt processing wherever provider caching is available. The gateway handles provider-specific requirements while giving you clear visibility into cache hits, usage, and estimated savings. Set expiration windows, isolate cached content by project, and invalidate entries when prompts change. Your existing routing logic stays intact, so you can compare models without rebuilding your caching workflow. […]
輸出 588 tok (+435 思考) 延遲 13.9 s
約束服從度（字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句）、文風指紋，以及長度控制。
只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換
以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點，相同的金鑰，相同的請求結構。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-opus-5-5",
# model="gpt-6.1-sol", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-5-5",
// model: "gpt-6.1-sol", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-5-5",
# "model": "gpt-6.1-sol", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"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-5-5",
// Model: "gpt-6.1-sol", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
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-5-5")
// .model("gpt-6.1-sol") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Claude Opus 5.5 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 哪個比較便宜？
GPT-6.1 Sol 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$2 對比 $4，相差 2.0×）。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊，實際成本取決於您的使用組合。
我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下，對 Claude Opus 5.5 和 GPT-6.1 Sol 進行 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務，並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串，因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。
Claude Opus 5.5 與 GPT-6.1 Sol 支援提示快取嗎？
是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率，因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。