Quick Verdict
| Need | Better first pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest raw API cost | OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Luna and older mini/nano routes are cheaper than most Claude routes |
| Coding and careful review | Anthropic | Claude Sonnet 5 and Opus often justify the premium when failed outputs are expensive |
| Broad product ecosystem | OpenAI | Stronger multimodal tooling, SDK familiarity, and integrations |
| Long-document Claude workflows | Anthropic | Claude context and response style are a real advantage for many teams |
| Cost-control architecture | Both | Route cheap work first, then escalate only when quality pays back |
Use the chart and calculator above to model your own monthly volume before choosing a default.
Pricing Table
| Provider | Model | Input | Cached input | Output | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Luna | $1.00 | $0.10 | $6.00 | Lower-cost current GPT route |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Terra | $2.50 | $0.25 | $15.00 | Balanced GPT-5.6 production workloads |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Sol | $5.00 | $0.50 | $30.00 | Premium OpenAI flagship route |
| Anthropic | Claude Haiku 4.5 | $1.00 | $0.10 | $5.00 | Claude utility calls |
| Anthropic | Claude Sonnet 5 | $2.00 | $0.20 | $10.00 | Default Claude coding and production route |
| Anthropic | Claude Opus 4.8 | $5.00 | $0.50 | $25.00 | Premium Claude fallback |
| Anthropic | Claude Fable 5 | $10.00 | $1.00 | $50.00 | Hard Claude workloads only |
OpenAI has the clearer raw price advantage, especially if GPT-5.6 Luna is good enough. Anthropic competes by reducing downstream cost: fewer bad code changes, better long-form outputs, or less human review.
Where OpenAI Wins
OpenAI is the safer default for high-volume general workloads, multimodal apps, teams already built around OpenAI SDKs, and products that need many model price points. If the task is easy to check, start cheaper and escalate only on failure.
Where Anthropic Wins
Anthropic is strongest when coding, review quality, long-document reasoning, or Claude-specific style matters more than token price. Claude Sonnet 5 is the practical default; Opus and Fable should be escalation routes.
Routing Table
| Workload | First route | Escalation route |
|---|---|---|
| Classification or extraction | GPT-5.6 Luna | Claude Sonnet 5 |
| Support draft | GPT-5.6 Luna | Claude Sonnet 5 |
| Code review | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
| Premium analysis | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Sol or Claude Opus 4.8 |
| Long Claude workflow | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 only when justified |
If your OpenAI or Anthropic workflow needs generated speech, compare ElevenLabs for TTS, dubbing, cloning, and voice agents.
FAQ
Is OpenAI cheaper than Anthropic?
Usually, yes on raw token price. GPT-5.6 Luna is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5 and far cheaper than Claude Fable 5.
When is Anthropic worth the premium?
Anthropic is worth testing first when coding quality, long-form writing, tool-use reliability, or human review time is more expensive than token usage.
Should I use one provider for everything?
Usually no. Use cheaper routes for routine work and keep premium OpenAI or Claude models for hard requests, failures, and high-value users.
Does prompt caching change the comparison?
Yes. Repeated system prompts, retrieval context, and tool schemas can make cached-input rates a major part of the real bill.
Where can I compare all models live?
Use the full pricing table and token cost calculator for current rates across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Mistral, Groq, Together, and more.
Bottom Line
OpenAI is the better raw-value default for most API volume. Anthropic is the better quality-first choice when Claude reduces retries or review work. The highest-margin setup is a router, not a brand bet.
Affiliate disclosure: sponsored links may earn us a commission at no extra cost to you. They do not affect the comparison above.