Which is Better: O3 or 4.5 ChatGPT?

When OpenAI made ChatGPT-O3 and ChatGPT-4.5 available simultaneously side by side in 2025, developers faced an intriguing choice: O3's systematic reasoning engine versus 4.5's conversational mastery.

O3 built its reputation on deep reasoning, thinking longer, showing its work, and delivering analytical rigor. Meanwhile, 4.5 tuned itself for creativity and conversation, wielding 12.8 trillion parameters to produce remarkably human-like responses. Real-world testing revealed surprising strengths and weaknesses that challenged initial assumptions about which model would dominate.

The Reasoning Battle

O3's systematic chain-of-thought approach gave it a clear edge in complex analytical tasks. External evaluations found O3 made approximately 20% fewer major errors on hard real-world problems compared to previous models.

When tackling legal reasoning benchmarks, O3 produced comprehensive answers that identified nuanced issues and integrated facts more effectively than 4.5. Users discovered O3 could break down problems methodically, essentially "double-checking its work" on everything from tricky math puzzles to intricate code debugging. One lawyer testing both models noted that O3's bar exam responses impressed with their thoroughness and logical structure.

4.5's quick intuition from 12.8 trillion parameters took a different path. It relied on pattern recognition from its vast training data. On straightforward factual queries or coding tasks it had seen before, 4.5 delivered accurate solutions instantly. This speed advantage made it practical for many everyday uses.

However, without an explicit chain-of-thought, 4.5 sometimes stumbled on highly complex, multi-step problems. It might skip logical steps or offer answers that "felt" right but lacked rigorous derivation. The verdict: O3 excelled when each logical step mattered, while 4.5 won when quick, broadly accurate answers sufficed.

Communication Styles

4.5's "high emotional IQ" transformed how users experienced AI conversation. Trained with emphasis on emotional intelligence, 4.5 could mirror tones, empathize appropriately, and inject humor or warmth into responses. Marketing professionals praised its ability to craft individual brand voices and adapt style to be more persuasive or friendly as needed.

This conversational flair made 4.5 ideal for writing in specific voices, whether a friendly tutor, witty storyteller, or polite customer service agent. Its outputs weren't just coherent but genuinely nuanced and context-aware, contributing to smoother conversations with less prompt engineering required.

O3's no-nonsense, technical communication served a different purpose. Described as "a logical thinker, not a sensitive conversationalist," O3's answers focused on facts and precision. This shone in technical discussions but could feel dry or overly formal in casual conversation.

Why users often switched between models mid-conversation became clear: they wanted 4.5's engaging explanations combined with O3's analytical depth. A popular technique emerged where users would let 4.5 draft a friendly initial answer, then pass it to O3 for critical evaluation. Some likened this to having 4.5 as a "linesman" and O3 as the "expert player", each checking and supplementing the other's work.

Speed vs Power Trade-offs

O3's slower but thorough processing came at a price, literally. Costing $10 input and $40 output per million tokens, O3 cost significantly more than standard models. OpenAI acknowledged "O3 is slower than the other models, which can be a disadvantage for longer conversations." Complex prompts could take minutes as O3 reasoned through problems.

This deliberate pace was a feature, not a bug. When allowed to "think longer," O3's performance kept climbing. Developers learned to reserve O3 for depth over speed, when an extra 30 seconds of thinking could save hours of debugging later.

4.5's snappier responses for real-time use made it more practical for interactive applications. 4.5 didn't involve as many internal deliberation steps. Pro users reported chatting with 4.5 for hours without hitting limits, whereas O3's deep reasoning had monthly quotas.

Context handling capabilities revealed another dimension. O3 supported massive context windows up to 128,000+ tokens, and O3's architecture was slightly better positioned for ultra-long inputs without losing track.

Cost-performance considerations for developers boiled down to use case. High-volume customer service? O3 was too expensive. Complex one-off analysis? O3's thoroughness justified the cost. Most found 4.5 hit the sweet spot for everyday use while keeping O3 as their secret weapon for tough problems.

Real-World Applications

Complex coding/debugging: O3's domain

O3 excelled at hard programming problems, algorithm puzzles, and stepping through tricky code. Its explicit reasoning made it reliable for generating correct code and explaining non-trivial algorithms step-by-step. Developers used O3 to methodically refactor large codebases or track down bugs by analyzing each step.

While 4.5 knew most programming concepts and could quickly produce code for common tasks, it didn't emphasize internal debugging. For boilerplate code and quick fixes, 4.5's speed was valued. But on deeply convoluted bugs or novel algorithm design, developers reached for O3's analytical power.

Creative writing/content: 4.5's strength

GPT-4.5 was "specially developed for high-quality content," excelling at marketing copy, storytelling, and generating text with desired tone or style. Users reported 4.5 could produce writing that was coherent, highly nuanced, and human-like, often "original, flexible, and customizable" to any voice needed.

O3's writing remained functional and correct but lacked creative spark. As one observer noted, "O3's writing is useful for technical documentation or reports, but it may lack the lively touch for marketing copy or a personal blog."

Technical research: O3's analytical rigor

In fields like data science, engineering, and law, O3 proved itself as an analytical powerhouse. Its multi-step reasoning made it ideal for analyzing scientific data, proving theorems, or constructing legal arguments. Early testers praised O3's "analytical rigor as a thought partner," able to generate and critically evaluate hypotheses.

4.5 served research contexts when the need was to synthesize or explain information accessibly. Its broad knowledge made it excellent for background explanations, literature summaries, or brainstorming ideas in plain language.

General chat: 4.5's conversational edge

For day-to-day assistant use, GPT-4.5 was widely favored. Its conversational improvements meant it could carry dialogue naturally and handle open-ended questions gracefully. Users deploying chatbots found that "for any use case where the human touch in conversation is important... GPT-4.5 is preferable."

O3 worked in conversational settings when discussion required problem-solving. An IT helpdesk diagnosing technical issues might leverage O3's analytical tone. But O3 was less adept at casual small talk or emotional support, responding correctly but impersonally.

The Limitations Reality Check

O3's overthinking simple problems and formatting quirks

Ironically, O3 could hallucinate when misused on straightforward questions. If thrown a simple query, it might overcomplicate things, forcing chain-of-thought reasoning where direct answers would suffice. Users complained about O3's "over-reliance on tables" and tendency to truncate responses despite requests for prose.

4.5's occasional vagueness on precision tasks

Because 4.5 favored intuition and fluency, it could be too vague on tasks needing precision. Lawyers found its answers "too concise, vague and fuzzy" for formal writing. In complex coding, 4.5 wouldn't always show reasoning, so if its first guess was wrong, users got no insight into why.

User errors in model selection

Many frustrations stemmed from using the wrong tool for the job. People who used O3 for everything found it "underwhelming" on simple tasks. Those sticking only to 4.5 might never realize particularly tough questions could be answered better by O3.

Access and pricing barriers

O3 required special access and came with monthly limits even for Pro users. Its high API costs ($10-40 per million tokens) made it impractical for high-volume applications. Meanwhile, 4.5's initial preview pricing ($75/$150 per million tokens) and tight message limits meant only select users could evaluate it extensively early on.

Conclusion

No single winner emerged: task-dependent preferences ruled. If we gauge by breadth of usage, ChatGPT-4.5 won broader daily usage for its versatility and conversational prowess. Many Plus users defaulted to 4.5 for most prompts because it provided high-quality answers faster and with more flair.

Declaring 4.5 the outright winner ignores the significant segment of power users who preferred O3 whenever reasoning quality trumped everything else. These users accepted O3's quirks in exchange for that one perfect answer it could deliver after chewing on a complex prompt.

The most effective users leveraged both as complementary tools. Developers kept GPT-4.5 as their go-to generalist (faster, friendlier, nearly as smart) but were grateful to have O3 for hard problems. The real-world preference was to match the model to the mission, using O3's superior reasoning or 4.5's superior conversational ability as needed. When both were active, that flexibility ultimately mattered more than crowning a single champion.

PromptLayer is an end-to-end prompt engineering workbench for versioning, logging, and evals. Engineers and subject-matter experts team up on the platform to build and scale production-ready AI agents.

Made in NYC 🗽 Sign up for free at www.promptlayer.com 🍰