TechCompare LogoTechCompare

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.5: Anthropic's latest flagship takes on OpenAI's best

Claude Opus 4.8 edges out GPT-5.5 on pure pricing thanks to cheaper output tokens. For long-form generation, report writing, and deep code synthesis, Opus 4.8 is the more economical premium pick. GPT-5.5 remains competitive for OpenAI-ecosystem teams who value its tool integrations and structured output features.

Anthropic's refreshed flagship versus OpenAI's frontier reasoning engine.

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's latest flagship, refining Opus 4.7's reasoning with better instruction following and deeper multi-step planning. GPT-5.5 is OpenAI's top-tier reasoning model. Both target the same premium tier at $5/M input tokens, but Opus 4.8 undercuts GPT-5.5 on output pricing by $5 per million tokens.

By TechCompare · Updated

Cost Comparison

Based on 100,000 input tokens (50% cached), 5,000 output tokens, and 100 requests.

Option A
Claude Opus 4.8
Wins 1 of 4 compared specs
Option B
GPT-5.5
Wins 0 of 4 compared specs

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Opus 4.8GPT-5.5
Input Cost (per M)$5.00$5.00
Output Cost (per M)$25.00 (better on this spec)$30.00
Cached Input (per M)$0.50$0.50
Batch Discount50%50%

How they differ

Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens, with a 90% caching discount. GPT-5.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $30.00 per million output tokens, also with a 90% caching discount. Both support a 50% batch discount. At 1M output tokens per day, Opus 4.8 saves roughly $1,825 per year compared to GPT-5.5 on output alone.

Verdict

Both sit at $5.00/M input, $0.50/M cached, and 50% batch discount, so three of four rows tie. Output alone tilts the math: Opus 4.8 at $25.00/M against GPT-5.5's $30.00/M is a $5/M gap that holds in every mode including batch. On 1M daily output tokens that's ~$1,825 per year saved. Reach for GPT-5.5 only when OpenAI's Assistants API or structured outputs are load-bearing in your setup.

Which should you pick?

Choose Claude Opus 4.8

Long-form content generation, deep code synthesis, multi-step autonomous agents where output token volume dominates your bill. Anthropic's tool-use and prompt caching ecosystem.

Choose GPT-5.5

OpenAI-native workflows, Assistants API integration, structured outputs, and teams already invested in the OpenAI SDK and monitoring toolchain.

Related comparisons

GPT-5.4 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
The workhorse model pricing showdown.
Read comparison ➜
Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Frontier reasoning versus optimized price-performance.
Read comparison ➜
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Mistral Large 3
Serverless pricing versus flagship open weights.
Read comparison ➜
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 Mini
Fast, lightweight multimodal models comparison.
Read comparison ➜
Gemini 3.1 Pro (<=200k) vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Coding workhorses and reasoning model showdown.
Read comparison ➜
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Speedy utility model versus premium reasoning flagship.
Read comparison ➜

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.5 cheaper for long-form generation?
Opus 4.8. Both charge $5.00/M input, but Opus 4.8 charges $25.00/M output versus GPT-5.5's $30.00/M. At 1M output tokens per day that's a $5 daily gap, roughly $1,825 per year. Both 90% cache discount and 50% batch discount are identical so the gap holds in every mode.
Does the OpenAI ecosystem justify GPT-5.5's premium?
Only if you depend on OpenAI's Assistants API, structured outputs, or its monitoring toolchain. Teams already invested in the OpenAI SDK can absorb the $5/M output gap as the cost of integration. If you're API-agnostic, Opus 4.8's identical reasoning tier at lower output cost is the better deal.
What's the cached input difference between Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5?
There is none. Both discount to $0.50/M cached input from the same $5.00/M base. Caching doesn't change the verdict on this pair. Output pricing is the only meaningful cost lever.