Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) vs GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) by Anthropic or GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning) by OpenAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) scores 28.9 points higher (49.7 vs 20.8) but costs 23× as much to run the benchmark ($5868 vs $256; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 20.8, and GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning) when 20.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) | GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.7 | 20.8 | −58.1% GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-re… is 58.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,867.76 | $255.77 | −95.6% GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-re… is 95.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 39.66s | 5.11s | −87.1% GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-re… is 87.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $2.00 / $12.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning) vs Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh): 58.1% less intelligence, 95.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 87.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh)GPT-5.6 Terra (Non-reasoning)Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-xhigh/gpt-5-6-terra-non-reasoning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-xhigh/gpt-5-6-terra-non-reasoning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill