TL;DR: Anthropic wins on flagship pricing—Claude Opus 4.5 costs 76% less than GPT-5.2 Pro ($5 vs $21 per million input tokens). OpenAI wins on mid-range value—GPT-5.2 delivers 400K context at $1.75/1M vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 at $3.00/1M. For budget tiers, it’s a toss-up: GPT-5 mini is cheaper at $0.25/1M, but Claude Haiku 4.5 offers Anthropic’s safety standards at $1.00/1M.
The Pricing Landscape
Both providers organize their models into three tiers, but their pricing strategies differ:
- Anthropic charges premium prices for mid-range (Sonnet 4.5 at $3/1M) but keeps flagship access affordable (Opus 4.5 at $5/1M)
- OpenAI spreads costs more evenly, with dramatic jumps between tiers—especially the Pro tier at $21/1M
| Tier | Anthropic | OpenAI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget | Haiku 4.5: $1.00/1M | GPT-5 mini: $0.25/1M | OpenAI (4x cheaper) |
| Mid-Range | Sonnet 4.5: $3.00/1M | GPT-5.2: $1.75/1M | OpenAI (42% cheaper) |
| Premium | Opus 4.5: $5.00/1M | GPT-5.2 Pro: $21.00/1M | Anthropic (76% cheaper) |
Three-Tier Deep Dive
Budget Tier: Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5 Mini
Use case: Prototyping, classification, simple completions
| Model | Input/1M | Output/1M | Context | SWE-bench |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 mini | $0.25 | $2.00 | 128K | ~72% |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | $1.00 | $5.00 | 200K | ~75% |
The math: GPT-5 mini is 4x cheaper on input, 2.5x cheaper on output. For high-volume preprocessing, this gap compounds fast.
When to choose Haiku 4.5 despite the cost:
- You need Anthropic’s safety standards (RLHF, constitutional AI)
- 200K context vs 128K matters for your use case
- You’re already in the Anthropic ecosystem (Claude Code, Max subscription)
Verdict: GPT-5 mini wins on pure cost. Haiku 4.5 wins on safety and context. For most budget use cases, GPT-5 mini is the rational choice.
See detailed budget analysis: /compare/models/budget-tier/
Mid-Range Tier: Sonnet 4.5 vs GPT-5.2
Use case: Production APIs, daily coding, RAG systems
| Model | Input/1M | Output/1M | Context | SWE-bench | Cached Input |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 | $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K | 80.0% | $0.175/1M |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | $3.00 | $15.00 | 200K | ~78% | None |
The math: GPT-5.2 is 42% cheaper on input, offers 2x the context, and has cached input pricing (90% discount on repeated context). For RAG systems with fixed knowledge bases, cached pricing drops GPT-5.2’s effective cost to $0.175/1M—17x cheaper than Sonnet 4.5.
When to choose Sonnet 4.5 despite the cost:
- Anthropic’s reasoning quality is critical (multi-step logic, safety-critical outputs)
- You need extended thinking mode for complex problems
- You’re already committed to Claude Max subscription
The cached pricing advantage: If your application sends the same context repeatedly (RAG, conversation history, codebase analysis), GPT-5.2’s cached input pricing ($0.175/1M) is a game-changer. Claude Sonnet 4.5 offers no equivalent discount.
See detailed mid-range analysis: /compare/models/mid-range/
Premium Tier: Opus 4.5 vs GPT-5.2 Pro
Use case: Complex reasoning, research, safety-critical applications
| Model | Input/1M | Output/1M | Context | SWE-bench |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.5 | $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K | 80.9% |
| GPT-5.2 Pro | $21.00 | $168.00 | 400K | ~80% |
The math: Claude Opus 4.5 is 4.2x cheaper on input and 6.7x cheaper on output. A request costing $100 with Opus 4.5 costs $546 with GPT-5.2 Pro. Unless you specifically need 400K context, Opus 4.5 delivers better benchmarks at a fraction of the price.
When GPT-5.2 Pro makes sense:
- You need 300K+ context (only Pro offers 400K)
- You’re doing research-scale synthesis requiring maximum compute
- Cached pricing offsets the base cost for repeated large contexts
Verdict: Claude Opus 4.5 is the clear value winner in the premium tier. GPT-5.2 Pro’s pricing is only justified for specific research contexts requiring maximum context windows.
See detailed premium analysis: /compare/models/premium/
Real-World Cost Scenarios
Scenario A: Startup API Backend (Monthly)
Usage: 50M input + 10M output tokens, mix of sync/batch
| Provider | Tier | Sync Cost | Batch Cost | Total Monthly | Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 | $87.5K + $140K | $43.75K + $70K | $170K | $2.04M |
| Anthropic | Sonnet 4.5 | $150K + $150K | $75K + $75K | $300K | $3.6M |
| Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | $250K + $250K | $125K + $125K | $375K | $4.5M |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 Pro | $1.05M + $1.68M | $525K + $840K | $1.73M | $20.76M |
Takeaway: At startup scale, OpenAI’s GPT-5.2 saves $1.56M annually vs Anthropic’s Sonnet 4.5. The cached input pricing (if applicable) would save even more.
Scenario B: Individual Developer Daily Workflow
Usage: 100K input + 20K output/day, 5 days/week, 50% cached context
| Provider | Model | Daily Cost | Weekly Cost | Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 (cached) | $0.175 + $8.75 + $280 = $289 | $1,445 | ~$75K |
| Anthropic | Sonnet 4.5 | $300 + $300 = $600 | $3,000 | ~$156K |
| Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | $500 + $500 = $1,000 | $5,000 | ~$260K |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 Pro (cached) | $2.10 + $105 + $3,360 = $3,467 | $17,335 | ~$901K |
Takeaway: For individual developers, GPT-5.2 with cached inputs is most economical. Claude Opus 4.5 costs 3.5x more but delivers better reasoning. GPT-5.2 Pro is economically irrational for individual use.
Scenario C: Enterprise RAG with Repeated Context
Usage: 500M input/month (80% cached) + 50M output
| Provider | Model | Cached Input | New Input | Output | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 | $70K | $175K | $700K | $945K |
| Anthropic | Sonnet 4.5 | — | $1.5M | $750K | $2.25M |
| Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | — | $2.5M | $1.25M | $3.75M |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 Pro | $840K | $2.1M | $8.4M | $11.34M |
Takeaway: For RAG with repeated context, GPT-5.2’s cached pricing creates massive savings—$1.3M less than Sonnet 4.5 monthly. If your use case involves repeated context, OpenAI is the clear choice.
The Hack: Subscription vs API Break-Even
For individual developers, subscriptions often beat API pricing. Here’s the math:
Claude Subscription Analysis
| Plan | Monthly Cost | Opus 4.5 Messages | Equivalent API Value | Break-Even |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pro | $20 | ~100 | ~$2,500 | 4K input + 800K output |
| Max-5x | $100 | ~500 | ~$12,500 | 20M input + 4M output |
| Max-20x | $200 | ~2,000 | ~$50,000 | 80M input + 16M output |
The hack: If you use fewer than ~100 Opus 4.5 messages/month, Claude Pro ($20) is cheaper than API. At Max-20x ($200), you get $50K in equivalent API value—an insane 250x multiplier if you max it out.
OpenAI Subscription Analysis
| Plan | Monthly Cost | Pro Access | Equivalent API Value | Break-Even |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plus | $20 | Limited | ~$420 | 240K input + 48K output |
| Pro | $200 | Higher limits | ~$4,200 | 2.4M input + 480K output |
Key difference: OpenAI’s subscription plans offer limited GPT-5.2 Pro access. Heavy users need API pricing regardless of subscription tier.
Decision Matrix
| If you use… | Choose | Why |
|---|---|---|
| < 100 premium messages/month | Claude Pro | $20 beats API pricing |
| 100-500 premium messages/month | Claude Max-5x | Best value for moderate use |
| > 500 messages or automation | Pure API | Rate limits favor API at scale |
| Need 400K context occasionally | GPT-5.2 Pro API | Subscriptions don’t cover large contexts |
See full subscription analysis: /value/smart-spend/
Hidden Cost Factors
Rate Limits (Entry Tier)
| Provider | Model | Requests/Min | Tokens/Min |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | GPT-5.2 | 3,500 | 200K |
| Anthropic | Sonnet 4.5 | 50 | 50K |
| Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | 50 | 40K |
Impact: Anthropic’s stricter rate limits may force you to upgrade to enterprise tiers earlier than OpenAI.
Batch Discounts
Both providers offer 50% discounts for asynchronous workloads:
| Model | Batch Input | Batch Output |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 | $0.875/1M | $7.00/1M |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | $1.50/1M | $7.50/1M |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | $2.50/1M | $12.50/1M |
| GPT-5.2 Pro | $10.50/1M | $84.00/1M |
Cached Input (OpenAI Only)
GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.2 Pro offer 90% discounts on repeated context. Anthropic has no equivalent feature. For RAG systems, this is a decisive advantage.
Verdict by Use Case
| Use Case | Winner | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget prototyping | OpenAI | GPT-5 mini | $0.25/1M is unbeatable |
| Production APIs | OpenAI | GPT-5.2 | 42% cheaper, cached pricing |
| Safety-critical apps | Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | Constitutional AI, better calibration |
| Research at scale | Anthropic | Opus 4.5 | 80.9% SWE-bench, 4x cheaper than Pro |
| 400K+ context needs | OpenAI | GPT-5.2 Pro | Only option |
| Individual developers | Anthropic | Claude Max | Subscription value beats API |
| RAG with fixed context | OpenAI | GPT-5.2 | Cached pricing = 90% savings |
Related Comparisons
By Tier:
- /compare/models/budget-tier/ — Under $1/1M: GPT-5 mini, Gemini 3 Flash, Kimi k2.5
- /compare/models/mid-range/ — $1-$3/1M: GPT-5.2, Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Pro
- /compare/models/premium/ — $5+/1M: Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2 Pro
Value Optimization:
- /value/smart-spend/ — Subscription vs API break-even math, $200 value extraction
- /value/free-stack/ — Free tier access to frontier models
- /posts/anthropic-tos-changes-2025/ — Policy changes affecting value
What Would Invalidate This
- Price changes on either provider’s API pricing page
- New cached input feature from Anthropic
- Introduction of new tier (e.g., “Ultra” or “Nano”)
- Subscription plan restructuring
Sources
- Anthropic API Pricing: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (as of 2026-02-03)
- OpenAI API Pricing: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (as of 2026-02-03)
Last updated: 2026-02-03. Pricing verified from official sources. Verify current rates before committing to large workloads.