ChatGPT-5 vs Claude Opus 4.1 for Coding: context windows, toolchains, benchmarks, and pricing
- Graziano Stefanelli
- 7 hours ago
- 4 min read
The differences between ChatGPT and Claude now lie in developer experience, not just model performance.
By September 2025, both OpenAI and Anthropic have built robust ecosystems around their flagship models—GPT‑5 and Claude Opus 4.1—optimized for real-world software development. While both models now support long contexts, chain-of-thought planning, and IDE integrations, the way they handle code execution, project editing, and development workflows still diverges. This article offers a full overview of their capabilities, limitations, and value propositions—covering context sizes, performance benchmarks, agentic tooling, and cost structures—so developers and engineering teams can make an informed choice.
GPT‑5 and Claude Opus 4.1 offer comparable reasoning, but differ in how they allocate memory.
The context window remains a critical differentiator in LLM workflows. Both OpenAI and Anthropic now offer high-capacity variants, but the window size, output tokens, and architecture behavior differ based on plan level and usage tier.
Table 1 – Model context windows and output capacity (September 2025)
Model / Interface | Context Window | Max Output Tokens | Availability |
GPT‑5 Fast (ChatGPT) | 16K / 32K / 128K† | Not disclosed (~8K) | Free to Enterprise |
GPT‑5 Thinking (ChatGPT) | 196K | Not disclosed (~8K) | Plus and above |
GPT‑5 API | 400K (272K in, 128K out) | 128K | Paid API only |
Claude Opus 4.1 | 200K | 32K | Claude Pro, Max |
Claude Sonnet 4 (API) | 1,000K | 32K | Claude API only |
† Context varies by plan: Free = 16K, Plus/Business = 32K, Pro/Enterprise = 128K.
GPT‑5’s “Fast” and “Thinking” modes are routed dynamically in ChatGPT, with the latter used for long, complex, or heavily nested tasks. Claude’s Opus 4.1 model, by contrast, offers consistent 200K-token support across all tiers, while Sonnet 4 is reserved for enterprise-level API use cases requiring document-scale reasoning.
ChatGPT includes native code execution, while Claude relies on an external CLI toolchain.
One of the most striking differences lies in how each platform executes code and integrates with local environments. ChatGPT provides a full execution layer via Code Interpreter (Python + GPU), while Claude relies on external agents and file-manipulation tools.
Table 2 – Code execution and developer tooling
Capability | ChatGPT-5 | Claude Opus 4.1 |
Native code execution | Yes – Code Interpreter (Python, GPU, plotting) | Yes – API beta with special header (no GPU yet) |
IDE integration | VS Code (v1.103+), JetBrains, GitHub Copilot Chat | JetBrains plugin (beta), VS Code helper scripts |
Local project support | Partial (file upload, inline editing) | Full via “Claude Code” CLI: test, edit, commit |
Agentic interaction | Built-in routing + Think mode + file tools | Claude Code CLI with memory, retries, explain steps |
Usage caps (code tools) | No known cap on Code Interpreter | Weekly limits apply to Claude Code (since Aug 28) |
Claude’s Claude Code tool allows structured, file-based edits across full repositories—ideal for debugging or test suite automation. ChatGPT, however, offers real-time code execution in-browser, which makes it more suitable for data science, plotting, or rapid API testing workflows.
GPT‑5 currently leads on formal benchmarks, while Claude earns points for human usability.
Model performance varies by benchmark and task type. While GPT‑5 holds a slight numerical lead in SWE-bench metrics, independent reviewers highlight Claude’s stronger formatting, clarity, and “developer-like” structuring of output, especially in real-world multi-file tasks.
Table 3 – Benchmarks and performance reports (as of September 2025)
Test / Source | GPT‑5 | Claude Opus 4.1 / Sonnet 4 |
SWE-bench Verified Accuracy | 74.9% | 74.5% |
SWE-bench (public leaderboard) | 65.00 (GPT-5) | 64.93 (Claude Sonnet 4) |
Real-world tasks (Tom’s Guide) | Slower, generic output | Faster, better-structured artifacts |
Max-reasoning context coverage | 400K (API) | 1M (Sonnet 4 API only) |
Both models tie on basic reasoning tasks, but developers with production needs consistently report Claude to be more comprehensible and “cleaner” in output format, especially when modifying or reviewing existing code.
Pricing models reflect different philosophies: ChatGPT scales with usage tier, Claude locks behind Pro/Max.
The business model behind each assistant reflects different user bases. OpenAI emphasizes high-frequency usage and web-based development tools, while Anthropic offers token-based pricing with optional agentic enhancements.
Table 4 – Subscription and API pricing for coding usage (Sept 2025)
Plan / Model | Monthly Cost | Includes Coding Tools | Rate Limits & Notes |
ChatGPT Free | $0 | No | 16K GPT‑5 Fast only |
ChatGPT Plus | $20 | Yes – Code Interpreter, 32K Fast | 3,000 Thinking messages/week |
ChatGPT Pro (Enterprise) | $200 | Yes – 128K Fast, 196K Thinking | “Unlimited” for orgs; admin controls |
GPT‑5 API | Usage-based | Yes | $10–$15 / million tokens (est.) |
Claude Pro (Opus 4.1) | $20 | No code agent | 25M input tokens/week |
Claude Max (with Claude Code) | $200 | Yes – Claude Code tool included | Weekly execution caps (per repo / file) |
Claude API | Usage-based | Code tool (beta); 1M window (Sonnet) | $8 / M tokens in, $24 / M out |
ChatGPT Pro users benefit from GPU-backed execution and seamless in-chat coding loops, while Claude Max users gain access to persistent, multi-step project editors.
Strengths by developer persona and project type
Table 5 – Best-fit model by role and workflow
Persona | Best Fit | Rationale |
Front-end prototyper | ChatGPT-5 Fast | HTML/CSS/JS previews, web layout logic, code interpreter |
Data engineer / analyst | ChatGPT-5 Thinking | In-chat Python + CSV/Excel, GPU-based stats |
Full-stack engineer | Claude Opus 4.1 | Structured refactors, explain-by-step logic, file edits |
Architect / repo reviewer | Claude Sonnet 4 API | 1M-token context, entire repo summaries or audits |
Code automation / CI tooling | Claude Code CLI | Persistent memory, inline Git workflows, CLI test loops |
Practical recommendations for coding teams in September 2025
Use both platforms where possible. Claude for logic-heavy repo edits, ChatGPT for quick data tasks or one-shot scripts.
Split tasks by mode. Route debugging and test writing to Claude; keep ChatGPT for live execution and visualization.
Watch limits. GPT-5 Thinking messages are capped in Plus; Claude Code has weekly usage ceilings in Max plans.
Choose by repo size. Under 128K tokens, either model works. Over 200K tokens, Claude Sonnet 4 API is required.
Test in real tools. Claude Code works with VS Code and JetBrains. ChatGPT integrates with GitHub Copilot, VS Code, and web UIs.
ChatGPT-5 and Claude Opus 4.1 now serve complementary roles in the developer’s toolkit. Their differences no longer lie in isolated performance benchmarks, but in the way each model integrates into developer environments, handles stateful interactions, and scales across repositories. The best choice depends on whether your task requires direct code execution or long-form reasoning with structured memory—because in 2025, the real advantage isn’t speed or syntax, but continuity.
____________
FOLLOW US FOR MORE.
DATA STUDIOS