Compare GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus for reasoning and agents in 2025. Dive into benchmarks, use cases, and developer feedback to choose the best LLM for your projects.
Introduction
Choosing between GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus for reasoning and agentic tasks in 2025 can make or break your AI project. As a machine learning engineer, AI startup founder, or researcher, you need an LLM that excels in complex reasoning, autonomous task execution, and integration into agentic workflows. This article compares OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus, focusing on their reasoning capabilities, agentic performance, architecture, and real-world applications. We’ll use verified benchmarks like MMLU, HumanEval, and SWE-Bench, alongside developer feedback, to help you decide which model suits your needs.
Quick Comparison Table
| Model | Parameters | Context Window | Release Date | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4o | ~1.76T (est.) | 128K tokens | May 2024 | Multimodal reasoning, vision tasks, cost-effective APIs |
| Claude 3 Opus | ~2T (est.) | 200K tokens | March 2024 | Coding, complex reasoning, long-context analysis |
Model Overviews
GPT-4o
Developed by OpenAI, GPT-4o (released May 2024) is a multimodal LLM, succeeding GPT-4 with improvements in speed, cost, and multimodal capabilities. It processes text, images, and potentially other data, with a 128K-token context window. Its architecture, while undisclosed, likely builds on GPT-4’s transformer-based design, optimized for lower latency and enhanced reasoning. GPT-4o is accessible via OpenAI’s API and ChatGPT, with pricing at $5/$20 per million tokens (input/output). Its strengths include versatility, fast response times, and integration with tools like code interpreters and custom GPTs.
Claude 3 Opus
Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus, launched in March 2024, is the flagship of the Claude 3 family. Founded by ex-OpenAI researchers, Anthropic emphasizes safety and interpretability. Claude 3 Opus uses a hybrid architecture, possibly combining transformers with novel techniques for enhanced reasoning. Its 200K-token context window excels in long-context tasks, and it supports multimodal inputs (text and images). Available via Anthropic’s API, Amazon Bedrock, and Vertex AI, it costs $15/$75 per million tokens. Opus shines in coding, nuanced writing, and complex task analysis.
Benchmark Comparison
Benchmarks provide a standardized way to evaluate GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus across reasoning and coding tasks. Below, we break down key metrics relevant to reasoning and agentic capabilities.
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding)
MMLU tests general knowledge and reasoning across professional-level tasks.
- Claude 3 Opus: 86.8% (reported by Anthropic, March 2024)
- GPT-4o: 88.7% (reported by OpenAI, May 2024)
Analysis: GPT-4o edges out Claude 3 Opus in MMLU, showing stronger general reasoning across diverse subjects.
HumanEval (Code Generation)
HumanEval measures the ability to generate correct code for programming problems.
- Claude 3 Opus: 84.9% (Anthropic, March 2024)
- GPT-4o: 90.2% (OpenAI, May 2024)
Analysis: GPT-4o outperforms Claude 3 Opus in code generation, making it a strong choice for developers needing quick, accurate code.
SWE-Bench (Software Engineering Benchmark)
SWE-Bench evaluates real-world software engineering tasks, such as debugging and code refactoring.
- Claude 3 Opus: 38% (Anthropic, March 2024)
- GPT-4o: Not disclosed (OpenAI has not published SWE-Bench results for GPT-4o)
Analysis: Claude 3 Opus demonstrates strong performance in complex software tasks, but the lack of GPT-4o data makes direct comparison challenging.
GPQA (Graduate-Level Expert Reasoning)
GPQA tests advanced reasoning in specialized domains.
- Claude 3 Opus: Outperforms GPT-4 (specific score not disclosed)
- GPT-4o: Not disclosed
Analysis: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3, Claude 3 Opus reportedly excels in expert-level reasoning, but without specific scores, the comparison remains inconclusive.
GSM8K (Basic Mathematics)
GSM8K evaluates mathematical problem-solving.
- Claude 3 Opus: 95.0% (Anthropic, March 2024)
- GPT-4o: 92.1% (OpenAI, May 2024)
Analysis: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Opus slightly outperforms GPT-4o in basic math, indicating better precision in numerical reasoning.
Use Case Breakdown
Chatbots
- GPT-4o: Excels in conversational fluency and multimodal inputs (text, images). Its integration with ChatGPT and custom GPTs makes it ideal for customer-facing chatbots. Its lower API cost suits high-volume applications.
- Claude 3 Opus: Produces natural, contextually rich responses, especially for nuanced or sensitive topics. Its higher cost may limit scalability for chatbots.
Best for Chatbots: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, GPT-4o for versatility and cost; Claude 3 Opus for nuanced dialogue.
Coding
- GPT-4o: Strong in rapid code generation and debugging, particularly for frontend and general-purpose coding. Its HumanEval score (90.2%) highlights reliability.
- Claude 3 Opus: Superior for complex software engineering tasks, like refactoring large codebases, due to its 200K-token context window and SWE-Bench performance (38%).
Best for Coding: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, GPT-4o vs Claude 3, Claude 3 Opus for complex projects; GPT-4o for quick iterations.
Agents
- GPT-4o: Supports agentic workflows via OpenAI’s Operator feature (beta, $200/month Pro plan). It handles tasks like data collection and form submission but requires premium access.
- Claude 3 Opus: Offers “computer use” beta for autonomous task execution via API and containerization (e.g., Docker). Its agentic tool use scores (81.4% retail, 59.6% airline) outperform GPT-4o (68.0%, 49.4%).
Best for Agents: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Opus for advanced agentic capabilities; GPT-4o for accessible integration.
Document AI
- GPT-4o: Processes documents with text and images, suitable for summarization and data extraction. Its 128K-token context window is sufficient for most documents.
- Claude 3 Opus: Excels in long-context document analysis (e.g., legal contracts) due to its 200K-token window. It handles “needle in a haystack” problems effectively.
Best for Document AI: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Opus for long documents; GPT-4o for multimodal tasks.
Creative Writing
- GPT-4o: Produces creative, coherent text but may feel generic compared to Claude.
- Claude 3 Opus: Delivers nuanced, human-like writing, ideal for storytelling or professional content creation.
Best for Creative Writing: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Opus for natural tone; GPT-4o for flexibility.
Real-World & Dev Feedback
Developers and researchers on platforms like X and Hugging Face provide valuable insights into real-world performance.
- X Feedback: A user (@abacaj, March 2024) noted, “Just had a long coding session with Claude 3 Opus and man does it absolutely crush GPT-4. I don’t think standard benchmarks do this model justice.” Another user (@changoi, July 2025) said, “For deep thought or complex debugging, Claude still has an edge.”
- Hugging Face Discussion: A developer on Hugging Face’s Chatbot Arena Leaderboard discussion (March 2024) stated, “Claude’s context window makes it much more valuable than GPT-4 if you want to feed an entire codebase or a large chunk of it.” Conversely, some praised GPT-4o’s speed: “GPT-4o is super fast… excels at pointing your camera at things and asking involved questions.”
Summary: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Opus is favored for complex coding and long-context tasks, while GPT-4o is praised for speed and multimodal versatility.
Final Verdict
Choosing between GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus depends on your priorities:
- For reasoning, GPT-4o slightly leads in general tasks (MMLU: 88.7%), but Claude 3 Opus excels in specialized reasoning (GPQA) and math (GSM8K: 95.0%).
- For agentic workflows, Claude 3 Opus offers superior tool use and autonomy, making it ideal for complex, autonomous tasks.
- For cost and accessibility, GPT-4o’s lower API pricing ($5/$20 vs. $15/$75 per million tokens) and broader ecosystem (ChatGPT, plugins) make it better for startups and high-volume use.
- For coding and long-context tasks, Claude 3 Opus’s 200K-token window and SWE-Bench performance make it the go-to for software engineering and document analysis.
Recommendation: In Comparesion of GPT-4o vs Claude 3 Opus, Choose Claude 3 Opus if you’re a developer or researcher prioritizing complex reasoning, coding, or agentic tasks. Pick GPT-4o for versatile, cost-effective, and multimodal applications like chatbots or rapid prototyping. For a blended approach, platforms like Fello AI let you leverage both models seamlessly.
Explore More AI Comparisons
- Claude 3.5 Haiku vs. GPT-4o: Speed vs. Intelligence
- DeepSeek-V3 vs. LLaMA 4 Maverick: Open-Weight Battle
Sources:
- [1] Anthropic – Claude 3 opus
- [3] Vellum – Claude 3 opus vs. GPT-4o
- [7] Artificial Intelligence News – Claude 3 opus Benchmarks
- [10] TextCortex – Performance Comparison
FAQ
Which LLM is better for reasoning in 2025?
GPT-4o leads in general reasoning (MMLU: 88.7%), while Claude 3 Opus excels in specialized reasoning and math (GSM8K: 95.0%). Choose based on your task complexity.
Is Claude 3 Opus better than GPT-4o for coding?
Yes, Claude 3 Opus outperforms in complex software tasks (SWE-Bench: 38%) and long-context codebases, but GPT-4o is better for rapid code generation (HumanEval: 90.2%).
Can GPT-4o or Claude 3 Opus handle agentic workflows?
Claude 3 Opus leads with stronger agentic tool use (e.g., 81.4% in retail tasks). GPT-4o’s Operator feature is promising but less mature and requires a premium plan.
What are the pricing differences?
GPT-4o costs $5/$20 per million tokens (input/output), while Claude 3 Opus is $15/$75. GPT-4o is more cost-effective for high-volume use.
Where can I access these models?
GPT-4o is available via OpenAI’s API and ChatGPT. Claude 3 Opus is accessible through Anthropic’s API, Amazon Bedrock, and Vertex AI (limited preview).
