LLM Comparison
OpenAI vs Anthropic
Which LLM provider is better for Paperclip agents? Compare models, pricing, context, and use cases.
| Feature | OpenAI | Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Top models | GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, o1, o1-mini | Claude Opus 4, Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5 |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 200K tokens |
| Input pricing | $2.50 / 1M input tokens (GPT-4o), $0.15 / 1M input tokens (GPT-4o-mini) | $15 / 1M input tokens (Opus), $3 / 1M input tokens (Sonnet), $0.80 / 1M input tokens (Haiku) |
| Function calling | Native | Tool use |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Extended thinking | o1 models | All models |
OpenAI strengths
- Industry-leading reasoning
- Native function calling
- Structured outputs
- Widest ecosystem
- Vision + text in one model
Anthropic strengths
- 200K token context window
- Exceptional instruction following
- Extended thinking for complex reasoning
- Strong safety alignment
- Lower hallucination rates
Choose OpenAI when
Teams that need the best general-purpose reasoning and the broadest third-party ecosystem.
Choose Anthropic when
Teams prioritizing instruction following, long documents, and safety-critical applications.
Deploy with either on HostAgentes
Both providers are available. Switch models without redeploying. Test both and see which performs better for your agents.
Try both models on HostAgentes. Switch at any time without redeploying.
Start free trial