firebirdテックトーク

パソコ

パソコです！役に立ったらSNSでシェアしてもらえると嬉しいな！

“Wait — what’s the difference between ChatGPT’s GPT-6 and Claude’s Sonnet 5.5?”

A colleague asked me this the other day, and I couldn’t answer on the spot. “It’s the smarter one” doesn’t cut it as an explanation.

AI is evolving so fast that each company now offers multiple models simultaneously. OpenAI has rebuilt its lineup into a three-tier GPT-6 family (Astra, Sol, Luna). Anthropic now spans four tiers with Fable, Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku. Google splits between Pro and Flash. Model names have nearly been swapped out wholesale since I first wrote this article six months ago. Before you can even “use AI,” you’re stuck deciding which model to use — and that decision keeps getting harder, not easier.

This article is here to end that confusion. From the perspective of someone who has used all of them extensively, here is a complete guide to selecting the right AI model for the right job.

At-a-Glance: Major AI Model Comparison

Let’s start with the big picture. Here are the major models as of October 2026, compared across 8 dimensions, with pricing verified against each vendor’s official pricing page.

◎ = Best in class　○ = Fully practical　△ = Conditional　× = Not suitable. Pricing is from each vendor’s official page as of October 2026 and may shift with rate changes or revisions.

⚠️The biggest shift since the last update happened at Google. The old hierarchy was “Pro = high accuracy, Flash = lightweight.” Today, Gemini 3.8 Flash increasingly beats the previous Pro generation on coding and agentic benchmarks — “Flash means a compromise” no longer holds. If you weigh price, speed, and accuracy together, Flash is now the stronger default pick for most work.

Quick selection chart by task:

Which Layer Are You Actually Deciding At? A Model-Selection Flowchart

The comparison table above tells you which model is strong. But in practice, the harder question comes one step earlier: what layer of decision is your task actually at? If the decision criteria and procedure are already clear, a low-cost model is enough. If you still need to build those criteria, you need a top-tier model. There’s really only one axis here: can you write the procedure down completely enough that no further judgment is needed during execution?

It’s tempting to think “a complex or high-stakes task needs a top-tier model even when the instructions are clear” is a second, separate factor. It isn’t. If judgment keeps getting invoked mid-execution, that’s proof the procedure wasn’t actually written down completely — it collapses into the same single axis.

“Finishing the procedure” here is exactly the point from the discussion above: giving a vague role alone doesn’t produce decision criteria — only spelling it out as a procedure does. It’s easier to think of it this way: a top-tier model’s real job isn’t “producing the answer,” it’s “writing the flowchart a low-cost model can follow without hesitation next time.”

OpenAI: When to Use GPT-6 Astra, Sol, and Luna

The three-model lineup

OpenAI overhauled its entire lineup between September and October 2026, retiring the GPT-5 generation for the GPT-6 family (Astra, Sol, Luna). The old three-way split — general-purpose, reasoning-specialist, lightweight — has been consolidated into a single-line, three-tier structure: Astra (flagship), Sol (workhorse), Luna (lightweight).

GPT-6 Astra (flagship) shines on problems with definitive answers — math, science, logical deduction — and on multi-step agentic tasks. It effectively inherits the role the old o3 played: when using reasoning, it matches or beats human experts in roughly half of cases across 40+ occupations. The catch: higher cost and slower response time than Sol, so the practical approach is “Astra only for hard problems.”

GPT-6 Sol (workhorse) offers the best balance of cost, accuracy, and speed — this is the model running when you “just open ChatGPT.” It inherits GPT-4o’s old role as the all-rounder, handling writing, translation, and everyday coding without breaking a sweat.

GPT-6 Luna (lightweight) is optimized for everyday Q&A, text summarization, and classification tasks. It’s also the default model on the Free and Go tiers. It runs fast and cheap, making it ideal for batch-processing via API.

GPT-6’s exclusive edge: Intelligent UI and stronger agentic performance

The headline feature of the GPT-6 generation is “Intelligent UI” — tables, charts, and interactive widgets rendered on the fly to match the answer. Agentic task accuracy (autonomously executing multi-step workflows) has also improved substantially over the previous generation, making it easier to hand off compound work like “research this → summarize it → draft something” in a single instruction.

Weakness: live data and long-document instability

The biggest weakness is handling of recent information. Without web search enabled, it can’t access anything past its training cutoff. And when fed very long documents (tens of thousands of words), it tends to “forget” content from the later sections. For long-document processing, Claude wins.

Anthropic: When to Use Fable, Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku

The four-model lineup

Claude’s lineup has grown from three tiers (Sonnet, Opus, Haiku) to four, with the new flagship Fable added above Opus. Coding and long-document processing remain where Anthropic pulls ahead of OpenAI.

Fable 5.1 (new flagship) is officially positioned as “Anthropic’s most capable model,” designed for long-running agentic tasks and the hardest intellectual work. Priced on par with OpenAI’s Astra ($10/$50), it’s overkill for everyday use, but it’s the option when you need to hand off an autonomous task that runs for hours at a stretch.

Sonnet 5.5 (balanced, workhorse) is Claude’s daily driver as of October 2026. For everyday coding, document analysis, and long-text processing, this is your default. It inherits the “high-performance model for coding and agents” role from the previous Sonnet 4.6, and its edge over other models remains its 1 million token context window (roughly 750,000 words). Feed it an entire codebase and ask it to identify design problems — it can handle it.

Opus 5.5 (deep reasoning, agentic coding) shines when you need an AI to reason about design decisions, not just execute them. Its positioning has shifted toward being a “daily driver for agentic coding and enterprise work” — a step more practical than the old “rarely-used top-tier model” framing. When migrating legacy Perl code to Go, rather than just translating syntax, it came back with: “The hacks in this code exist to work around old memory constraints that don’t apply in Go — here’s how I’d redesign it using interfaces instead.” That’s the difference between Sonnet “translating” code and Opus “rethinking” it.

Haiku 5.5 (ultra-fast) is the API automation pick. Low cost, high throughput — use it for text classification, sentiment analysis, or bulk summarization pipelines. For chat use, Sonnet is worth the extra cost; for automation, Haiku is the realistic choice.

Claude’s exclusive edge: honesty and 1M tokens

Claude’s defining trait is honesty. When instructions are ambiguous, it asks for clarification. When it can’t do something, it says so. That straightforwardness reduces stress during long coding sessions.

And the 1 million token context fundamentally solves the “too long to fit in other AIs” problem. A full book’s worth of PDFs, project specifications spanning hundreds of pages, codebases spread across multiple files — you can feed it all at once and ask questions on top. Only Claude can do that today.

Weakness: Japanese prose style and live information

Claude’s default Japanese output tends to be explanatory and a bit stiff. Explicitly asking for “readable, conversational prose” helps significantly, but compared to ChatGPT’s natural warmth, Claude’s output can feel overly structured. And for real-time information, it falls behind Gemini.

Google: When to Use Gemini 3.1 Pro vs 3.8 Flash

A lineup, and a generational handoff

Gemini is integrated with all of Google’s services, making it unmatched for anything that needs real-time information. The biggest structural shift over the past six months happened here: the Pro line has stayed put at 3.1, while the Flash line has pushed forward to 3.8 — and now beats the previous Pro generation on coding and agentic benchmarks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (hardest reasoning) is the pick when accuracy matters more than speed. Complex reasoning, multimodal input (reading images, videos, audio), and deep Google Workspace integration are its strengths. “Summarize all my emails from last month from Akira-san” or “Create a forecast chart from this spreadsheet data” — both feel natural.

Gemini 3.8 Flash (workhorse) leads in response speed and cost efficiency, and now outperforms the previous Pro generation on measured coding and agentic benchmarks. The old assumption that “Flash means a lightweight compromise” no longer holds. For daily work, real-time API processing, and automated batch jobs, this is now the default candidate for most tasks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (lightest) trims cost even further, suited to high-speed lookups and high-volume API calls.

Gemini’s exclusive edge: real-time data and Google integration

Gemini’s defining differentiator is Google Search grounding. It’s not constrained to training data cutoffs — ask about today’s exchange rate or yesterday’s Nvidia stock price and it returns accurate, cited answers. For news, market data, and current tech developments, Gemini is currently the best option.

Passing a YouTube URL and having it summarize the video content is another Gemini-only capability worth noting.

Weakness: conversation UX and lineup complexity

Long conversations show issues with context retention, and the chat UI still feels less mature than ChatGPT or Claude for managing multiple ongoing projects. On top of Pro, Flash, and Flash-Lite, Google also runs variants like Live and Nano Banana — making “which one do I actually use” less obvious than with OpenAI or Anthropic.

4 Principles for Model Selection

Now that you know each model’s strengths, here are the principles I actually use when choosing.

① Have clear criteria for when to upgrade

Higher-end models (GPT-6 Astra, Opus 5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro) cost more. Having “the three thresholds to switch up” in your head makes the decision fast:

• When you’re in a loop: If a lower model keeps making the same mistake, that’s a signal the problem’s complexity exceeds its reasoning depth
• When you’re making architectural decisions: Choosing the design, not writing the implementation — that’s when Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra’s deeper reasoning pays off
• When mistakes aren’t acceptable: Legal documents, production code, external-facing deliverables — investing in a higher model is the safe play

② Use different models for different phases of the same task

Even a single project benefits from switching models by phase. For writing a blog post:

1. Research → Gemini 3.8 Flash / Perplexity (live data, citations)
2. Outline / brainstorm → GPT-6 Sol (expansive, ideation-friendly)
3. Draft → GPT-6 Sol (natural tone)
4. Code samples → Claude Sonnet 5.5 (accuracy first)
5. Image generation → GPT-6 Sol / image-generation API (text to image)

③ Use role prompting to raise the floor

Every model performs significantly better when given explicit role context: “You are an expert in X. Given the assumption that Y, please do Z.” Before switching to a more expensive model, try improving your prompt first — it’s the highest ROI improvement you can make.

④ Don’t confuse inference with investigation

The clearer your decision criteria and procedure, the less “guessing” a model has to do — which is exactly why clear procedures make low-cost models viable. That part is correct.

But it doesn’t follow that “a vague role means a model can’t do anything.” Even given a vague role, a model will draw on trained knowledge and conversational context to fill in what’s expected. Where models actually differ is in how well they fill that gap — how they handle ambiguity and edge cases.

The part that’s easy to miss: inferring to fill a gap and actually investigating are two different things. Telling a model “respond as a senior engineer” doesn’t guarantee it will go check the documentation. If investigation is genuinely required, it’s more reliable to bake it into the procedure itself: “check the existing implementation and the official docs, and separately report anything unconfirmed.”

The right approach depends on the type of work. There’s really one axis: can you write the task down completely enough that no further judgment is needed during execution?

In short: use a high-capability model to nail down the procedure and criteria, then hand routine execution off to a low-cost model. Even clear instructions can be executed incorrectly, though, so it’s safest to verify results against representative and edge cases before switching over. Pairing the procedure with good example outputs and pass/fail criteria sharpens the alignment even further.

Summary: The October 2026 Optimal Choices

AI progress won’t slow down. New models will likely arrive next month. But if you hold onto three selection criteria — “What am I trying to do?”, “What level of accuracy do I need?”, and “What’s the right cost-speed tradeoff?” — you’ll be able to choose clearly no matter how many new models appear.

Don’t chase the best model. Build the criteria to choose well. That’s the core of AI utilization in 2026.

Related articles:

• From Despair to Salvation: A Developer’s 3-Month Search for Claude Code Tools
• MCP and the Future of Interfaces
• More AI articles