New LLMs are being released all the time, and it’s exciting to see how they challenge the established players. This year, the focus has been on automating coding tasks, with models like o1, o1-mini, Qwen 2.5, DeepSeek R1, and others working to make coding easier and more efficient. One model that’s made a big name in the coding space is Claude Sonnet 3.5. It’s known for its ability to generate code and web applications, earning plenty of praise along the way. In this article, we’ll compare the coding champion – Claude Sonnet 3.5, with the new OpenAI’s o3-mini (high) model. Let’s see which one comes out on top!
The landscape of AI language models is rapidly evolving, with OpenAI’s o3-mini and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet emerging as prominent players. This article delves into a detailed comparison of these models, examining their architecture, features, performance benchmarks, and practical applications.
Both o3-mini and Claude 3.5 Sonnet are built on advanced architectures that enhance their reasoning capabilities.
Feature | o3-mini | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
Input Context Window | 200K tokens | 200K tokens |
Maximum Output Tokens | 100K tokens | 8,192 tokens |
Open Source | No | No |
API Providers | OpenAI API | Anthropic API, AWS Bedrock, Google Cloud Vertex AI |
Supported Modalities | Text only | Text and images |
Performance benchmarks are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of AI models across various tasks. Below is a comparison based on key metrics:
The user experience of AI models depends on accessibility, ease of use, and API capabilities. While Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers a more intuitive interface with multimodal support, o3-mini provides a streamlined, text-only experience suitable for simpler applications.
Both models are accessible via APIs; however, Claude’s integration with platforms like AWS Bedrock and Google Cloud enhances its usability across different environments.
Below we will analyze the pricing models, token costs, and overall cost-effectiveness of OpenAI o3-mini and Claude 3.5 Sonnet to help users choose the most budget-friendly option for their needs.
Price Type | OpenAI o3-mini | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
---|---|---|
Input Tokens | $1.10 per million tokens | $3.00 per million tokens |
Output Tokens | $4.40 per million tokens | $15.00 per million tokens |
Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers a balance between performance and cost, with pricing tiers that accommodate various usage patterns. o3-mini provides a cost-effective alternative, especially for tasks where high-level sophistication isn’t required, making it ideal for budget-conscious applications. When evaluating the total cost of ownership, consider factors such as development time, maintenance, and operational costs to make an informed decision that fits within budgetary constraints.
Prioritize Price (Choose OpenAI o3-mini)
When Price is Secondary (Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet)
In this section, we will explore how OpenAI o3-mini and Claude 3.5 Sonnet perform on different prompts.
Prompt: “Write a function in Python that performs topological sorting on a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The graph will be represented as a dictionary where keys are nodes and values are lists of their adjacent nodes. Include error handling to detect if the input graph contains a cycle.”
# Example usage:
graph = {
'A': ['B', 'C'],
'B': ['D'],
'C': ['D'],
'D': []
}
try:
sorted_nodes = topological_sort(graph)
print("Topologically sorted nodes:", sorted_nodes)
except ValueError as e:
print(e)
Output:
Topologically sorted nodes: ['A', 'C', 'B', 'D']
# Example usage
graph = {
'A': ['B', 'C'],
'B': ['D'],
'C': ['D'],
'D': []
}
try:
result = sort_graph(graph)
print(f"Topological order: {result}") # Output: ['A', 'C', 'B', 'D']
except ValueError as e:
print(f"Error: {e}")
# Example with a cycle
cyclic_graph = {
'A': ['B'],
'B': ['C'],
'C': ['A']
}
try:
result = sort_graph(cyclic_graph)
except ValueError as e:
print(f"Error: {e}") # Output: Error: Graph contains a cycle
Output:
Topological order: ['A', 'C', 'B', 'D']
Error: Graph contains a cycle
You can find the complete code generated by the models, here.
Verdict:
o3-mini (high) ❌ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ✅
Prompt: “Write a Python class that implements a Bloom filter with configurable size and number of hash functions. Include methods to add elements to the filter and check if an element is present. The implementation should be memory-efficient and handle hash collisions effectively.”
# Example usage:
bloom = BloomFilter(size=1000, num_hash_functions=3)
# Add elements
bloom.add("apple")
bloom.add("banana")
# Check if elements are present
print(bloom.contains("apple")) # Output: True
print(bloom.contains("banana")) # Output: True
print(bloom.contains("cherry")) # Output: False (most likely, but might return True due to false positives)
Output:
True
True
False
class CollisionAwareBloomFilter(BloomFilter):
"""
A Bloom filter that tracks hash collisions for analysis purposes.
"""
def __init__(self, size, hash_count, *args, **kwargs):
# Initialize the parent class with the size and hash_count
super().__init__(size, hash_count, *args, **kwargs)
# Store num_hashes and initialize collision tracking structures
self.hash_count = hash_count
self.collision_count = 0
self.hash_positions = set()
def add(self, item):
"""
Add an item to the filter while tracking collisions.
Args:
item: Item to add
"""
hash_values = self._get_hash_values(item)
for hash_val in hash_values:
if hash_val in self.hash_positions:
self.collision_count += 1
self.hash_positions.add(hash_val)
self.bit_array[hash_val] = 1
self.item_count += 1
def get_collision_stats(self):
"""
Get statistics about hash collisions.
Returns:
dict: Collision statistics
"""
return {
'total_collisions': self.collision_count,
'unique_positions_used': len(self.hash_positions),
'collision_rate': self.collision_count / max(len(self.hash_positions), 1) # Avoid division by zero
}
# Example usage:
# Initialize with size and hash_count
bloom_filter = CollisionAwareBloomFilter(size=1000, hash_count=3)
# Add items to the Bloom filter
items_to_add = ['item1', 'item2', 'item3']
for item in items_to_add:
bloom_filter.add(item)
# Get collision statistics
collision_stats = bloom_filter.get_collision_stats()
print(collision_stats)
Output:
{'total_collisions': 0, 'unique_positions_used': 9, 'collision_rate': 0.0}
You can find the complete code generated by the models, here.
mmh3
hashing, O3 uses md5
. Since md5
has known security issues for cryptography it would not be appropriate for the prompt.bitarray
library for more efficient memory.Verdict:
o3-mini (high) ❌ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ✅
Prompt: “Create an interactive physics-based animation using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript where different types of fruits (apples, oranges, and bananas) fall, bounce, and rotate realistically with gravity. The animation should include a gradient sky background, fruit-specific properties like color and size, and dynamic movement with air resistance and friction. Users should be able to add fruits by clicking buttons or tapping the screen, and an auto-drop feature should introduce fruits periodically. Implement smooth animations using requestAnimationFrame and ensure responsive canvas resizing.”
You can find the complete code generated by the models, here.
You can find the complete code generated by the models, here.
Claude 3.5 uses physics-based animation to create realistic fruit drops, with gravity, collision handling, and dynamic interactions that respond to user input. It offers a lifelike simulation with effects like acceleration, bounce, and rotation. In contrast, OpenAI o3-mini uses basic CSS keyframe animation for a simple falling fruit effect. While it provides smooth animations, it lacks real-time physics and interactivity, with fruits following predefined motion paths and consistent fall speeds.
Verdict:
o3-mini (high) ❌ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ✅
Prompt: “Create an HTML form with fields for name, email, and phone number. Use JavaScript to implement client-side validation for each field. Name should be non-empty, email should be a valid email format, and phone number should be a 10-digit number. Display appropriate error messages next to each field if the validation fails. Prevent form submission if any of the validations fail”.
validateForm()
handles validation for:
FormValidator
class handles validation using:
xxx-xxx-xxxx
style as users type.You can find the complete code generated by the models, here.
Verdict:
o3-mini (high) ❌ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ✅
Task | OpenAI o3-mini | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Winner |
---|---|---|---|
Task 1: Python Function | Provides functional solution, lacks error handling | Robust solution with DFS and cycle detection | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
Task 2: Bloom Filter | Basic implementation, uses MD5 hashing | Advanced implementation, uses mmh3 hashing, adds collision tracking | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
Task 3: Dynamic Web Component | Simple keyframe animation, limited interactivity | Realistic physics-based animation, interactive features | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
Task 4: Interactive Form Validation | Simple validation, basic design | Real-time validation, auto-formatting, modern design | Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
Both models prioritize safety, bias mitigation, and data privacy, but Claude 3.5 Sonnet undergoes more rigorous fairness testing. Users should evaluate compliance with AI regulations and ethical considerations before deployment.
Realted Reads:
When comparing OpenAI’s o3-mini and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet, it’s clear that both models excel in different areas, depending on what you need. Claude 3.5 Sonnet really shines when it comes to language understanding, coding support, and handling complex, multimodal tasks—making it the go-to for projects that demand detailed output and versatility. On the other hand, o3-mini is a great choice if you’re looking for a more budget-friendly option that excels in mathematical problem-solving and simple text generation. Ultimately, the decision comes down to what you’re working on—if you need depth and flexibility, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the way to go, but if cost is a priority and the tasks are more straightforward, o3-mini could be your best bet.
A. Claude 3.5 Sonnet is generally better suited for coding tasks due to its advanced reasoning capabilities and ability to handle complex instructions.
A. Yes, o3-mini can be used effectively for large-scale applications that require efficient processing of mathematical queries or basic text generation at a lower cost.
A. Yes, Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports multimodal inputs, allowing it to process both text and images effectively.
A. Claude 3.5 Sonnet is significantly more expensive than o3-mini across both input and output token costs, making o3-mini a more cost-effective option for many users.
A. Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports a much larger context window (200K tokens) compared to o3-mini (128K tokens), allowing it to handle longer texts more efficiently.
Nice article.
Nice article