Claude and GPT models reach near-identical performance levels
New data from Epoch AI shows the gap between OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5 has narrowed to just 0.7 points.
The short version
- GPT-6 Astra scored 169.1 on the Epoch AI index, while Claude Opus 5.5 scored 168.4.
- Claude gained 42.8 index points since early 2024, while GPT gained 40.2 points.
- Both models now score 100.0% on competition math and 98.5% on the ARC-AGI-1 benchmark.
- The 0.7-point gap falls within the 90% confidence intervals for both models, indicating high overlap.
Why it matters
For users, this means that choosing between the two leading models may depend more on specific features or pricing than raw intelligence. It signals that the industry is reaching a plateau where standard benchmarks can no longer easily distinguish between top-tier models.
Closing the performance gap
Recent data from Epoch AI reveals that the performance gap between the leading AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic has nearly vanished. According to calculations based on Epoch AI's public benchmarking data, OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5 are now separated by only 0.7 points on the Capabilities Index.
This narrow margin follows a period of rapid development for both companies since early 2024. Anthropic's Claude moved from a score of 125.6 with Claude 3 Opus to 168.4 with Opus 5.5. During the same timeframe, OpenAI's GPT rose from a 128.9 snapshot of GPT-4o to 169.1 with GPT-6 Astra.
The data was compiled by Alex Michael on X using independent evaluations from Epoch AI. These figures are notable because they are not self-reported by the labs, providing a more objective look at how these models compare against one another in a standardized environment.
Significant gains in reasoning
The most striking aspect of the new data is the sheer scale of improvement both models have achieved in specific reasoning tasks. In competition math, both labs saw their models jump from single-digit percentages to a perfect 100.0% score. This suggests that both systems have mastered the logic required for these types of problems.
Other areas of growth include factual recall and graduate-level science. For example, Claude's factual recall rose from 12.6% to 72.2%, while GPT's rose from 26.0% to 75.6%. In graduate-level science, GPT improved by 46.6 points and Claude improved by 43.4 points, showing consistent progress across different types of complex knowledge.
However, as models improve, they begin to hit
The shift toward model fungibility
The data suggests a broader trend where the underlying model weights are becoming increasingly fungible. This means that the core intelligence provided by the base models is becoming more similar across different providers. Instead of one model being vastly superior in raw logic, both labs are reaching a point where their primary outputs are nearly indistinguishable on standard tests.
Because the models are clustering at the top of these benchmarks, the distinction between them is shifting. The focus is moving away from which model is "smarter" in a vacuum and toward how these models are implemented. This shift is a key component of the Subsidized AGI Economy, where the primary value is no longer just the model itself but how it is utilized.
The importance of the agentic harness
As the base models become more similar, the competitive advantage for companies like OpenAI and Anthropic is moving toward the "harness." This refers to the agentic scaffold or the specific software environment built around the model. The harness determines how the model interacts with tools, handles multi-step tasks, and delivers specific results to the end user.
For businesses, this means that the "intelligence" of the model is just one part of the equation. The way a lab designs the surrounding system to manage complex workflows becomes the primary differentiator. This is why the 0.7-point gap on the index is less significant than the architecture that allows a model to perform work in a real-world setting.
Context for business strategy
It is important to note that these benchmark scores reflect models at their best tested settings, which may involve using more compute per answer. This does not necessarily represent the performance of a model in a standard consumer product where resources might be more limited. Readers should view these numbers as a ceiling of capability rather than a guaranteed experience in every use case.
This analysis aligns with frameworks used by over 95,000 executives who follow the Business Engineer for AI strategy. These leaders look at how models like Claude, GPT, and Perplexity can be integrated into corporate structures. For these decision-makers, the goal is finding the right balance between a model's raw capabilities and the practical harness that makes it useful for a company.
Sources and links
- ReportingFourWeekMBA: the article we sourced
Liked it? Say why
Add a line for other readers.
No account needed. We never show your email. Comments with links, ads or abuse are held and not shown. Your comment shows after a quick check.
Listen to the AI Wire headlines
Listen to the AI WireListen to our daily AI shows every morning: on your commute, in the shower, wherever you are
Listen to the daily showsFirst reported by FourWeekMBA · Read the original. Written by the SI Agent News Desk from the reporting above.Written with AI from the source above. Every number is checked against the source. Spot a mistake? Corrections.
