GPT-5.4 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6: which is cheaper for production?
Use GPT-5.4 for one-off tasks with short context. Use Claude Sonnet 4.6 for long-document processing or agentic loops where context caching drastically reduces the cost.
The workhorse model pricing showdown.
GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 are the two most popular models for general-purpose applications. While GPT-5.4 has a lower base input cost, Claude Sonnet 4.6's aggressive prompt caching can make it cheaper for long-context agentic workflows.
By TechCompare · Updated
Cost Comparison
Based on 100,000 input tokens (50% cached), 5,000 output tokens, and 100 requests.Prices are fetched live from OpenRouter and may include temporary promotional discounts not accounted for in our article and comparison figures.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | GPT-5.4 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Input Cost (per M) | $2.50 (better on this spec) | $3.00 |
| Output Cost (per M) | $15.00 | $15.00 |
| Cached Input (per M) | $0.25 (better on this spec) | $0.30 |
| Best for Agentic Loops | Capable | Optimal (better on this spec) |
How they differ
GPT-5.4 charges $2.50 per million input tokens and $15.00 for output. Claude Sonnet 4.6 charges $3.00 for input and $15.00 for output, but offers a 90% discount on cached input tokens, reducing the effective input price to $0.30 per million for repetitive context.
Verdict
GPT-5.4 saves you 50 cents per million input tokens ($2.50 against $3.00) and ties on output at $15.00/M. The math narrows once you cache: Sonnet 4.6's cached input at $0.30/M only trails GPT-5.4's $0.25/M by a nickel, and on a 70% reuse agentic loop that 90% discount closes most of the base gap without ever overtaking the cheaper base. So match the model to the prompt's lifespan, not its size.
Which should you pick?
Choose GPT-5.4
Short conversations, independent API calls without shared context.
Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6
Agentic loops, RAG, and workflows where the system prompt and history are heavily reused.