Claude vs GPT-4 for Coding: The Short Answer
If you're comparing Claude vs GPT-4 coding performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the stronger choice for most software engineering tasks in 2026. It leads on SWE-bench, handles larger codebases in a single context window, and follows multi-step instructions more reliably. GPT-4o has the edge in multimodal tasks and ecosystem integrations — but for shipping code, Claude wins more benchmarks that map to real work.
Here's what the data actually says, and where each model breaks down.
Benchmark Comparison
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | GPT-4o | |-----------|-------------------|--------| | HumanEval | 92.0% | 90.2% | | SWE-bench Verified | 49% issues resolved | 38% issues resolved | | MBPP (Python) | 90.5% | 87.8% | | Context Window | 200K tokens | 128K tokens | | Input Pricing | $3 / 1M tokens | $5 / 1M tokens |
SWE-bench is the benchmark that matters most for real-world coding. It tests whether a model can actually read a GitHub issue, navigate a codebase, write a patch, and have that patch pass existing tests — not whether it can write a sorting function when given an empty file. Claude's 49% vs GPT-4o's 38% is a meaningful gap in practice.
Context Window and Codebase Size
Claude's 200K token context window versus GPT-4o's 128K changes what's possible in a single request:
- At 200K tokens, you can feed Claude an entire medium-sized repository and ask it to find a bug, refactor a module, or add a feature while maintaining awareness of the full codebase
- At 128K tokens, GPT-4o frequently needs to be given smaller slices, which increases the risk of missing dependencies or making edits that conflict with code it never saw
For agentic coding workflows — where the model loops through read → edit → test → fix — a larger context window directly reduces the number of context-truncation failures. This matters particularly for debugging sessions that span multiple files.
Instruction Following in Multi-Step Tasks
Where Claude consistently outperforms GPT-4o is in following precise, multi-step instructions without deviation. When you tell Claude "add error handling to this function, write the test, then update the README to document the new error codes," it tends to do exactly that in order. GPT-4o has a tendency to partially complete complex instructions or reorder steps.
For software engineering agents that chain tool calls — read file → write diff → run tests → evaluate output — this reliability difference compounds across a session.
Where GPT-4o Still Wins for Developers
GPT-4o has real advantages in specific coding contexts:
- Multimodal input: You can paste a screenshot of a UI and ask GPT-4o to write the corresponding React component. Claude supports image input but GPT-4o handles it more robustly in practice.
- OpenAI ecosystem: If you're using OpenAI Assistants API, fine-tuning, or building on top of the OpenAI function-calling layer, GPT-4o integrates without friction.
- Speed on short tasks: For simple one-shot code completions, GPT-4o's response latency is often lower.
Real-World Usage Patterns at 100x
We run both models in production across client projects. The routing we've settled on:
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet → multi-file refactors, debugging sessions, writing tests for existing code, anything requiring full-codebase context
- GPT-4o → multimodal tasks (UI screenshots to code), integration code for OpenAI-based products, short one-shot generations
Rarely does it make sense to pick one and ignore the other entirely. The question is which model to default to for which task category.
Should You Pick One?
Most serious engineering teams don't pick one — they route by task type. If you're forced to choose a single default for a coding assistant or agent, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the more defensible choice given current benchmarks and real-world agentic performance.
For a broader comparison of the models across reasoning, document analysis, and pricing, see our GPT-4 vs Claude comparison. If you're evaluating AI infrastructure for a product, see how we structure AI MVP sprints for team that want production output in three weeks.
Related: GPT-4 vs Claude 3.5: Full Model Comparison · How We Ship AI MVPs in 3 Weeks · Vibe Coding to Production
Ready to Build?
Whether you need a quick prototype or a production-ready platform, our team ships in 3-week fixed-price sprints. Book a 15-min scope call to discuss your project.
Related Resources
Related articles:
Our solution: AI MVP Sprint — ship in 3 weeks
Browse all comparisons: Compare
Related Articles
- How We Ship AI MVPs in 3 Weeks (Without Cutting Corners) — Inside look at our sprint process from scoping to production deploy
- AI Development Cost Breakdown: What to Expect — Realistic cost breakdown for building AI features at startup speed
- Why Startups Choose an AI Agency Over Hiring — Build vs hire analysis for early-stage companies moving fast
- The $4,999 MVP Development Sprint: How It Works — Full walkthrough of our 3-week sprint model and what you get
- 7 AI MVP Mistakes Founders Make — Common pitfalls that slow down AI MVPs and how to avoid them