claude-opus-5-5 vs gpt-6-sol
Parameters, independent leaderboard coverage, real-task reports and open-weight availability are shown side by side; missing coverage is not a zero.
Parameters
| Comparison item | claude-opus-5-5 | gpt-6-sol |
|---|---|---|
| Model Type | LLM | LLM |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Input/output modalities | text, image → text | text, image → text |
| Endpoint | anthropic · openai | openai · openai-response |
| Open weights | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| License | Proprietary hosted model | Proprietary hosted model |
Leaderboard coverage
Every independent board covering either model is retained; an em dash means that board has not published a figure for that model.
Real-task reports
claude-opus-5-5
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one interactive website prompt — Build an interactive website about imaginary planets from a single prompt. Finding: Opus 5.5 took 26 minutes and built a fuller, explorable solar system with more detail, using 16% of the $20 plan's usage; GPT-6 Sol took 10 minutes for three planets and 1% of the $200 plan's usage. Limitation: One prompt judged by the author; the usage shares are meters of two different subscription plans, not API costs.
- Four models build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js — Build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js. Finding: Opus 5.5 cost $8.95 and took 10 minutes; the author preferred its frontend and 3D detailing to GPT-6 Astra's ($7.45, 8 minutes), found GPT-6 Sol ($3.90, 5 minutes) disappointing and Kimi K3 ($4.04, 6 minutes) strong for the price. Limitation: One task judged by eye by the author; the post does not say how the models were run or how the costs were counted.
- Claude Pro, Codex Plus and SuperGrok on the same work at maximum settings — One piece of work run on each $20 subscription; the task itself is shown only in the author's video. Finding: Opus 5.5 used 10% of the weekly limit (115 million tokens) over 2 hours and scored 5/10, behind GPT-6 Sol at 7/10 (29 million tokens, 69 minutes) and Grok 4.7 at 6/10; the author still recommends Claude at $20 for its usage allowance. Limitation: The post does not describe the task, the quality score is the author's own, and the numbers are subscription meters rather than API usage.
- Eight weeks of Claude Code usage re-priced at Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 rates — Price every request from eight weeks of the author's own Claude Code transcripts at Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 list prices. Finding: 97% of the tokens were cache reads, so the same usage came to $2,849 at Opus 5.5 rates against $5,071 at Opus 5 rates — 44% less, rather than the 20% the headline input and output prices suggest. Limitation: It re-prices the same token counts and does not measure whether Opus 5.5 uses more or fewer tokens on the same work; list prices, not subscription billing; the author built the tool that read the transcripts.
- Four models build a lava lamp from one prompt — Build a lava lamp from a single prompt. Finding: Claude Opus 5.5 was the slowest and most expensive at $1.27 and 9 min 35 s, and in replies the account agreed it had a rough showing, answering 'Not on this test' to a claim that Opus beat Sol. Limitation: One prompt with the quality verdict left mostly to readers; the account is BridgeMind's own benchmark and does not say how the models were accessed.
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on a black hole merger test — The account's black hole merger visualisation test. Finding: Claude Opus 5.5 cost $0.69 and took 6 min 8 s; the account called it 'a significant leap for design', while GPT-6 Sol did the test for $0.08 in 1 min 33 s. Limitation: One test judged by the account; the task is shown only in the attached video.
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one motion-graphic prompt — Make a 20-second motion graphic explaining how a language model turns a prompt into an answer and why long answers cost more. Finding: Claude Opus 5.5 took 12.7 minutes and $2.86 against GPT-6 Sol's 11.4 minutes and $1.09; the author called the gap 'not even close' and, in replies, agreed that Sol's result was far worse. Limitation: One subjective prompt; the verdict comes from the author's post and replies rather than a score.
- AI Coding Daily LLM Coding Leaderboard — Implement and harden production-shaped projects in several stacks, including a Laravel app, a Go service and a React/TypeScript app, from the same prompts. Finding: Claude Opus 5.5 led the board at 57.83 on high reasoning ($0.79 and 3 min 10 s per run in Claude Code), with its medium setting second at 57.37. Limitation: One author's benchmark whose code-quality half is graded by a judge model; rows run in different harnesses, the page is updated as models are added (read on 2026-09-24, 47 rows), and the author sells premium tutorials and advertising.
- kzhu's six-question LLM test leaderboard — Six questions scored out of 10: constrained sentence writing, two reasoning puzzles (replaced by pelican and compound-bow SVG animations in version 2.2), a browser OS with a space shooter, a 3D racing game and a Trello-style board. Finding: Claude Opus 5.5 scored 55/60 on version 2.2 in Pi (54 in the author's note), 9 or 10 on every question; the author called its pelican SVG the best implementation seen and found nothing to fault in the browser OS, racing game or Trello board. Limitation: One author's scores on six questions; rows use different harnesses and test versions (2.1 or 2.2), and a few rows' table total differs by one point from the author's note.
gpt-6-sol
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one interactive website prompt — Build an interactive website about imaginary planets from a single prompt. Finding: GPT-6 Sol took 10 minutes and built three planets, using 1% of the $200 plan's usage; Claude Opus 5.5 took 26 minutes for a fuller, explorable solar system with more detail, using 16% of the $20 plan's usage. The author found the planets surprisingly similar: Sol faster, Opus bigger and more detailed. Limitation: One prompt judged by the author; the usage shares are meters of two different subscription plans, not API costs.
- Four models build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js — Build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js. Finding: GPT-6 Sol was the cheapest and fastest of the four at $3.90 and 5 minutes, but the author found its result a bit disappointing; they preferred Claude Opus 5.5 ($8.95, 10 minutes) and rated Kimi K3 ($4.04, 6 minutes) strong for the price. Limitation: One task judged by eye by the author; the post does not say how the models were run or how the costs were counted.
- Claude Pro, Codex Plus and SuperGrok on the same work at maximum settings — One piece of work run on each $20 subscription; the task itself is shown only in the author's video. Finding: GPT-6 Sol on Codex Plus used 9% of the weekly limit (29 million tokens) over 69 minutes and scored 7/10, the highest of the three plans, against 5/10 for Opus 5.5 and 6/10 for Grok 4.7; the author still recommends Claude at $20 because it yields far more tokens, and puts Codex Plus at about $330 of API usage a month. Limitation: The post does not describe the task, the quality score is the author's own, and the numbers are subscription meters rather than API usage.
- GPT-6 Astra, Sol and Luna on one SVG animation prompt — Generate an SVG animation of a pelican riding a bicycle, shown in H5. Finding: GPT-6 Sol took 4 min 42 s and used 2% of the five-hour quota, against 6 min 3 s and 16% for GPT-6 Astra; the author puts Sol's quota use at an eighth of Astra's and recommends Sol when quota matters. Limitation: One prompt; the quota shares are a subscription meter, not API cost, and the post gives no quality score for Sol.
- Four models build a lava lamp from one prompt — Build a lava lamp from a single prompt. Finding: GPT-6 Sol cost $0.08 and took 50 seconds, against $1.27 and 9 min 35 s for Claude Opus 5.5 and $0.63 and 5 min 4 s for GPT-6 Astra; in replies the account agreed Opus had a rough showing on this test. Limitation: One prompt with the quality verdict left mostly to readers; the account is BridgeMind's own benchmark and does not say how the models were accessed.
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on a black hole merger test — The account's black hole merger visualisation test. Finding: GPT-6 Sol cost $0.08 and took 1 min 33 s, an eighth of Claude Opus 5.5's cost and four times faster, but the account judged Opus 5.5 'a significant leap for design. It's not close.' Limitation: One test judged by the account; the task is shown only in the attached video.
- Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one motion-graphic prompt — Make a 20-second motion graphic explaining how a language model turns a prompt into an answer and why long answers cost more. Finding: GPT-6 Sol took 11.4 minutes and $1.09 against Claude Opus 5.5's 12.7 minutes and $2.86; the author called the gap 'not even close' and agreed with a reply that Sol's result was far worse. Limitation: One subjective prompt; the verdict comes from the author's post and replies rather than a score.
- GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Astra on a robot drawing benchmark — The author's robot-drawing-on-the-board benchmark. Finding: GPT-6 Sol used about 25k output tokens against Astra's 22k and its controller drew twice as fast, at almost a fifth of the running cost; the author had expected stronger spatial reasoning from it. Limitation: One run of a benchmark the post describes only by name, with no score.
- AI Coding Daily LLM Coding Leaderboard — Implement and harden production-shaped projects in several stacks, including a Laravel app, a Go service and a React/TypeScript app, from the same prompts. Finding: GPT-6 Sol scored 52.42 at high reasoning ($0.31 and 5 min 18 s per run in Codex CLI) and 50.07 at medium, 8th and 16th of 47 rows; Claude Opus 5.5 led with 57.83 and GPT-6 Astra at medium scored 56.03. Limitation: One author's benchmark whose code-quality half is graded by a judge model; rows run in different harnesses, the page is updated as models are added (read on 2026-09-24, 47 rows), and the author sells premium tutorials and advertising.
- kzhu's six-question LLM test leaderboard — Six questions scored out of 10: constrained sentence writing, two reasoning puzzles (replaced by pelican and compound-bow SVG animations in version 2.2), a browser OS with a space shooter, a 3D racing game and a Trello-style board. Finding: GPT-6 Sol scored 44/60 on version 2.2 in Pi: full marks on the constrained sentences, but SVG animations with reversed wheels and an arrow that broke physics (6 each), a space shooter that only moved sideways, and an English interface for a Chinese Trello brief; Claude Opus 5.5 scored 55 on the same version. Limitation: One author's scores on six questions; rows use different harnesses and test versions (2.1 or 2.2), and a few rows' table total differs by one point from the author's note.