Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-OSS 120B

Detailed comparison between Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-OSS 120B for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 takes the lead.

Both Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-OSS 120B are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Claude Opus 4.5:

  • Claude Opus 4.5 has 303 higher ELO rating
  • Claude Opus 4.5 delivers better overall quality (4.91 vs 4.85)
  • Claude Opus 4.5 is 2.9s faster on average
  • Claude Opus 4.5 has a 37.2% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Claude Opus 4.5

1619

GPT-OSS 120B

1316

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Claude Opus 4.5

56.0%

GPT-OSS 120B

18.9%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Claude Opus 4.5

4.91

GPT-OSS 120B

4.85

Average Latency

Response time

Claude Opus 4.5

8252ms

GPT-OSS 120B

11199ms

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricClaude Opus 4.5GPT-OSS 120BDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1619
1316
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
56.0%
18.9%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.91
4.85
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$5.00
$0.04
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$25.00
$0.19
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
200K
131K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-11-24
2025-08-05
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
8.3s
11.2s
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By benchmark

Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.

MSMARCO

MetricClaude Opus 4.5GPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.97
4.93
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.97
4.90
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.97
4.90
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.97
4.97
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.97
4.87
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.97
4.91
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
5992ms
5616ms
Average response time
Min2590ms1255msFastest response time
Max8072ms20330msSlowest response time

PG

MetricClaude Opus 4.5GPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.93
4.80
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.93
4.80
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.93
4.80
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.93
4.83
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.80
4.73
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.91
4.79
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
11489ms
19128ms
Average response time
Min7945ms1317msFastest response time
Max15934ms69491msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricClaude Opus 4.5GPT-OSS 120BDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.73
4.87
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.80
4.87
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.80
4.87
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.97
4.80
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.70
4.70
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.80
4.82
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7276ms
8854ms
Average response time
Min4210ms0msFastest response time
Max10496ms35709msSlowest response time

Explore More

Compare more LLMs

See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.