Chat GPT‑5 vs Claude 4.1 Opus: Building a Quant Pricing Engine
- Bryan Downing
- Aug 7
- 12 min read
Chat GPT‑5 vs Claude 4.1 Opus: Building a Quant Pricing Engine, HTML Dashboard, and CLI—What Worked, What Didn’t, and How I’ll Trade Next
Below are SEO‑optimized title options; pick one as your H1 and use the others for A/B tests, social posts, or syndication.
ChatGPT‑5 vs Claude 4.1 Opus for Quant Trading: I Built a C++ Pricing Engine and Dashboard—Here’s What I Learned
I Tested ChatGPT‑5 for Quant Coding: C++ Options Pricing, HTML Dashboard, and CLI vs Claude 4.1 Opus
Can ChatGPT‑5 Code a Trading Stack? C++ Pricing Engine, JSON, Chart.js Dashboard, and IBKR Plans
ChatGPT‑5 Review for Algo Traders: Portfolio Optimization, Backtesting, and Hallucination Risks
Claude 4.1 Opus vs ChatGPT‑5: Streamlit Apps, Token Limits, and Real‑World Quant Workflows
How I Used ChatGPT‑5 to Generate a Futures/Options Pricing Engine and Interactive Dashboard
ChatGPT‑5 for Finance Developers: From Arbitrage Strategy to 4‑Week Guidance and Backtests
AI Coding Showdown: ChatGPT‑5, Claude 4.1 Opus, and Gemini on Quant Research and Trading Apps
Quant Dev Deep Dive: C++ Pricing, HTML Front End, Portfolio Allocations, and IBKR Gateway on Linux
The Truth About AI for Trading: What ChatGPT‑5 Gets Right, Where It Hallucinates, and My Next Steps
Suggested meta title: ChatGPT‑5 vs Claude 4.1 Opus for Quant Trading: C++ Pricing Engine, Dashboard, and Real‑World Results
Suggested meta description: I used ChatGPT‑5 to generate a C++ pricing engine, JSON pipeline, and HTML/Chart.js dashboard, plus a CLI app, then compared it to Claude 4.1 Opus. Here’s what worked, what hallucinated, token limits I hit, and how I plan to integrate IBKR on Linux for live trading.
Suggested slug: chatgpt5-vs-claude-opus-quant-pricing-engine-dashboard
Target keywords: ChatGPT‑5, Claude 4.1 Opus, quant trading, C++ pricing engine, options strategies, futures trading, portfolio optimization, backtesting, hallucination risk, IBKR API, Linux gateway, Chart.js, JSON, Streamlit
TL;DR
I built two working artifacts with ChatGPT‑5 in hours: a C++ pricing engine that writes JSON and a lightweight HTML/Chart.js front end, plus a clean C++ CLI tool covering strategy toggles, allocations, 4‑week guidance, and backtests.
Code quality was surprisingly high: concise, readable C++, sensible structure, and an HTML interface that did exactly what I asked, including loading AI‑generated JSON to render charts and summary metrics.
Limits still bite: no streaming responses during long generations and input token cap errors when uploading many documents—a workflow that Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 2.5 Pro handled.
Hallucinations appeared in metrics (e.g., volatility/backtest numbers) and need verification before any live deployment.
My near‑term plan: keep building research apps with Claude 4.1 Opus (great with Streamlit + large context), use ChatGPT‑5 for focused code generation (C++/frontend), and integrate Interactive Brokers Gateway on Linux for headless execution. Zero Windows/TWS dependency if possible.
Nothing in this post is trading advice. Treat AI outputs as drafts. Verify every assumption with real data and risk controls.
Introduction: Why This Test Matters for Algo Traders
Each generation of large language models (LLMs) promises a new level of automation. The question that matters to algo traders isn’t just “Can it write code?” but “Can it build an end‑to‑end research and execution workflow that survives contact with markets?”
In a rapid test window, I pointed the latest ChatGPT‑5 at a demanding assignment: generate a C++ options/futures pricing engine, emit machine‑readable results as JSON, build a front‑end HTML/Chart.js dashboard to visualize metrics, and also produce a C++ command‑line interface (CLI) for day‑to‑day research chores like enabling/disabling strategies, viewing portfolio allocations, and producing a 4‑week guidance report. Then I benchmarked the experience against Anthropic’s Claude 4.1 Opus—which had impressed me just the previous night—and against Gemini 2.5 Pro on context handling.
The outcome surprised me: ChatGPT‑5 delivered clean code and functional artifacts with minimal iteration. But I also ran into two real constraints—context limits and some clearly questionable metrics—reminding me that shipping reliable trading software still requires judgment, testing, and guardrails.
This is a practical, developer‑level write‑up of what I built, what broke, and how I’m stitching together a multi‑model workflow to move from research to live micro futures/options in the coming weeks.
What I Asked the Model to Build
The build brief had three pillars:
A C++ pricing engine for specific strategies
Instruments and ideas included:
RTY (Russell 2000 mini futures) with an arbitrage‑style entry/exit ruleset
ZC (Corn futures) with a long call
CC (Cocoa) as part of an iron condor structure
Outputs: a 4‑week guidance with entry price, take‑profit, stop‑loss, implied volatility, forecast P&L, and risk stats. Also portfolio‑level expected return, volatility, and max drawdown.
Deliverables: JSON output file with all computed metrics for downstream consumption.
An HTML/JS front end to visualize the JSON
Requirements:
Single‑file index.html
Load JSON from disk and render charts and summary cards
Chart.js plots for cumulative P&L, historical volatility, and drawdown
Portfolio allocation, optimization summary, and rules overview
A CLI‑only C++ utility
Menu‑driven flow to:
Toggle strategies on/off
Show current allocation and “optimized” allocation
Display 4‑week guidance and year‑to‑date backtest summaries
Recompute the dashboard metrics on demand
The idea was to simulate a realistic quant researcher’s workflow: calculate, serialize, visualize, iterate.
Version 1: C++ Engine + JSON + HTML Dashboard
The C++ pricing engine
The engine’s job was to:
Ingest a curated dataset (options chains and historical series)
Apply simple rules for entries/exits
Compute implied vol where needed, estimate forecast P&L, and derive portfolio aggregates
Serialize everything to a JSON file for the dashboard
Observations:
Code quality was cleaner than I expected: logical structure, clear function boundaries, and comments at key steps. If you’ve wrestled with LLM‑generated C++ before, you know this isn’t a given.
The engine wrote a JSON payload naming RTY as the most profitable over the next four weeks. It also produced portfolio‑level summary stats (expected return, volatility, max drawdown).
Caveats:
Some computed values didn’t pass the smell test (e.g., unusually high annualized volatility figures and odd backtest totals). These may stem from assumptions the model invented if it didn’t find expected inputs in my prompts. This is the quintessential LLM “hallucination risk” in quant work: values that aren’t outright fabrications can still be wrong if the model guesses at methodology.
The HTML/Chart.js front end
The AI‑generated index.html hit the mark:
It let me pick the generated JSON file and then drew:
Summary “vitals” cards (P&L, portfolio volatility, max drawdown)
An “optimized current allocation” section
A cumulative P&L comparison across strategies (RTY, ZC, CC)
Historical volatility and drawdown charts for a quick backtesting view
A concise ruleset display to document strategy logic at a glance
What impressed me most:
This was a complete, working, single‑file dashboard tied neatly to the pricing engine’s JSON schema.
In my recent experience, even strong models often struggle to produce a coherent, first‑try front end that loads arbitrary JSON and charts it properly. Here, it “just worked.”
What still needs work:
Any dashboard is only as good as the metrics it shows. If volatility and P&L are suspect, the visualization becomes a very polished wrapper around bad signals. The next iteration will plug in verified data loaders and put constraints on any modeled outputs the LLM proposes.
Version 2: A Pure C++ CLI App
The second deliverable was a TTY‑friendly research utility. It featured:
A menu system to toggle strategies on/off
Current vs. purported “optimized” portfolio allocations
Four‑week forward guidance with entries, take‑profits, stops, forecast P&L, vol, and max drawdown
Year‑to‑date backtest summaries by strategy and at the portfolio level
A dashboard recompute command
Why this matters:
For fast iteration, I like to live in a terminal. A good CLI is often more productive than a GUI until you’re ready to share results broadly. Having both (CLI for me, HTML for stakeholders) is ideal.
What worked well:
The code compiled cleanly.
The menuing and reporting were sensible and mirrored the logic from the pricing engine.
What didn’t:
A few metrics looked off here too, aligning with the engine’s questionable outputs. This confirmed the need for validation layers rather than purely trusting what the model computes.
Strengths I Saw in ChatGPT‑5
Minimal iteration for complex scaffolding
It produced usable C++ and a functioning JSON‑to‑Chart.js front end in one shot. That’s rare.
Structured, readable C++
Names, program flow, and error handling were better than typical LLM output.
Front‑end fidelity
The HTML did exactly what I asked, including a clean file loader, well‑laid‑out sections, and charts that rendered without surgery.
Frictions and Limitations
No streaming output
During long code generations, there was no token‑by‑token stream like you get from Claude or Gemini. You wait and then see the final result. Not a blocker, but less ergonomic for long sessions.
Context/token limits
Uploading large numbers of documents (e.g., 40+ Word files) triggered input token cap errors—whereas Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 2.5 Pro handled the same payload in my experience. This limits certain “doc‑driven” workflows with ChatGPT‑5 unless/until a higher tier addresses it.
Metric hallucinations
The engine spit out suspicious numbers (e.g., annualized volatility north of where I’d expect; backtest totals that didn’t reconcile). LLMs are confident guessers. Unless you pin down every formula, they will invent or approximate. That’s dangerous in systematic trading.
A Pragmatic Multi‑Model Workflow
Based on these tests, here’s the game plan to move fast without breaking risk:
Use ChatGPT‑5 for targeted code generation
It’s excellent at producing clean C++ modules, JSON schemas, and simple, self‑contained HTML/JS dashboards. I’ll keep leaning on it for scaffolding and feature additions.
Use Claude 4.1 Opus for heavy research and app wiring
For Streamlit and large‑context, doc‑heavy flows, Claude’s long‑context tolerance and willingness to iterate over multi‑file codebases make it my current go‑to. In prior tests, it spun up a complex Streamlit research app with minimal back‑and‑forth.
Cross‑validate with a second LLM
When ChatGPT‑5 outputs a pricing function or a risk roll‑up, I’ll paste the code into Claude to audit assumptions, check edge cases, and propose unit tests. If both models converge, confidence rises.
Ground everything in verifiable data
No synthetic assumptions. Force the code to pull market data from a known source; enforce formula definitions for implied vol, drawdown, and P&L with explicit docstrings and checked calculations.
Add unit and property tests
Bake in tests for:
P&L identity checks (e.g., P&L long + P&L short around a spread equals combined spread P&L)
Monotonicity of cumulative curves
Volatility bounds (e.g., instrument‑specific ranges)
Drawdown consistency (max drawdown can’t be less than any subsequent drawdown segment in a period)
Keep a human in the loop
Even with two strong models, someone has to ask: “Does this look like any market I’ve ever traded?” Sanity checks win.
Strategy Case Study: RTY vs ZC vs CC
The test harness included three distinct ideas:
RTY arbitrage‑style setup
Four‑week view with entry, take‑profit, stop, and implied vol
LLM flagged RTY as the strongest performer in the forward window
ZC long call
Options premium, implied vol, and basic risk controls
CC iron condor
Multi‑leg credit spread with defined risk parameters
What I saw:
The dashboard highlighted RTY as the best performer. On the surface, the cumulative P&L plot and allocation advice backed that up.
But when I drilled into backtest and volatility figures, some numbers looked “too neat” or out of character. That’s classic LLM behavior when formulas aren’t specified or when data is ambiguous.
How I’m responding:
I’ll require the engine to:
Load historical data from a defined source (local CSV or API)
Compute volatility using a named method (e.g., Parkinson, Garman‑Klass, or simple close‑to‑close), then report which one it used
Validate backtest results with a fixed calendar and corporate action/roll logic for futures
Print a provenance report alongside the JSON: data source, date range, formula choices
If the LLM deviates from any of these, unit tests will fail and the pipeline will halt.
Portfolio Optimization and Risk
The generated tools included:
Proposed allocations
Expected return and volatility
Max drawdown
Why I’m cautious:
Optimization is hypersensitive to inputs. If your vol or correlation matrices are wrong—or worse, invented—you’ll “optimize” into fantasy. LLMs can create beautiful but brittle mathematical constructs.
What I’ll require going forward:
Explicit covariance estimation method (e.g., EWMA with a stated lambda, or Ledoit–Wolf shrinkage)
Realized risk derived from actual historical returns over a declared window
Constraints in the optimizer: position bounds, turnover limits, and stress tests
Out‑of‑sample validation: re‑test allocations on unseen data with roll‑forward windows
Backtesting: Guardrails or Bust
The CLI app reported year‑to‑date P&L by strategy and portfolio. Two observations jumped out:
Some strategies showed zero or unexplained totals
Annualized volatility figures were inconsistent with intuition
To cure this:
Fix the data path: load known good datasets; reject incomplete series
Seal the backtest calendar: define trading days, market hours, and futures roll rules
Enforce fees, slippage, and realistic fills
Log every trade, then reconcile P&L by trade, by day, and by strategy
Make the backtest deterministic: same inputs, same outputs—no hidden randomness
Once the backtester is trustworthy, the HTML dashboard becomes more than a demo; it becomes an audit tool.
Execution Layer: IBKR Gateway on Linux
I’m packaging this work for members under an “August 6 IBKR GPT project,” with the intent to:
Wire the research stack into Interactive Brokers Gateway on Linux
Avoid a dependency on Windows TWS
Keep production headless and scriptable
Why Linux gateway:
Stability and automation. It’s easier to containerize, monitor, and redeploy.
If I can reliably connect, place orders, and stream positions, there’s no reason to keep a GUI workstation in the loop.
What’s next:
I’ll test the IBKR plumbing with ChatGPT‑5 as the code generator and Claude 4.1 Opus as auditor
If all checks out, I’ll deploy small size in micro futures/options and monitor live
Again: this is a staged rollout. Every component gets tests before real orders flow.
Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 2.5 Pro: Where They Fit
Claude 4.1 Opus
Excellent for multi‑file reasoning, long context, and structured refactors
Strong performance generating a Streamlit research app with minimal iteration
Good partner for code audits, doc‑driven prompts, and high‑level architectural changes
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Also handled large document loads in my tests where ChatGPT‑5 hit token limits
Coding reliability varies by task; less consistent for complex C++/systems code than Claude/ChatGPT‑5 in my experience
Still useful as a third opinion for metrics validation and prompt sensitivity checks
Bottom line:
No single model is “the one.” Use ChatGPT‑5 for sharp code generation; use Claude when you need breadth of context and disciplined iteration; keep Gemini around as a tie‑breaker or for additional context handling.
Reducing Hallucinations in Quant Work
Here’s a shortlist of tactics that materially reduce errors when you use LLMs for finance:
Specify formulas, don’t just name metrics
“Compute historical volatility using Garman‑Klass over rolling 20‑day windows; report both raw and annualized with √252 scaling.”
Force data provenance
“Load data from X path; fail if any NaNs remain after forward‑fill; print sample stats for the first 10 rows.”
Use assertions in code
“Assert max drawdown is between 0 and 1; assert cumulative P&L curves are nondecreasing only if they’re absolute profits, not daily returns.”
Cross‑model verification
Paste code into a second model and ask: “List possible sources of error; write unit tests; point to lines that can misprice.”
Freeze versions
Pin dependency versions. “Chart.js vX.Y; nlohmann/json vZ; fmtlib vA” to avoid environment drift.
Add sanity dashboards
Put histograms and QQ‑plots into the HTML to catch outliers visually. If your returns distribution is “too normal,” it probably isn’t.
What I’ll Ship to Members
For Quan Elite members, I’m packaging:
The C++ pricing engine and CLI skeletons
The HTML dashboard wired to the JSON schema
A roadmap to integrate IBKR Gateway on Linux with clear build/run scripts
A validation checklist and starter unit tests for metrics
I’ll iterate on IBKR connectivity over the next few days and will add live execution plumbing when tests pass. The goal is a minimal, auditable loop: research → validate → stage orders → monitor.
Responsible Trading Notes
Demonstration only
The metrics shown in early runs are not vetted. Do not trade them.
Live trading plan
I intend to start small with micro contracts and ramp only after stability and risk checks.
Risk controls
Hard stops, position limits, and kill‑switches are non‑negotiable. LLMs don’t absolve you of risk management.
Nothing here is financial advice. Markets can and will punish unverified models.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not just build everything in Streamlit?
Streamlit is great for research dashboards, but I also want a portable CLI and a static HTML artifact that can be shared without a Python runtime. Different tools for different stakeholders.
Why Linux and IBKR Gateway instead of TWS on Windows?
Headless stability and automation. Gateways are easier to containerize, schedule, and supervise. If I can avoid a GUI dependency, I will.
Can I trust LLMs to compute risk?
Not without constraints. Treat their outputs as drafts. Enforce formulas, test against known cases, and fail fast on anomalies.
Which model is best right now?
It depends. For code generation and quick scaffolds, ChatGPT‑5 felt ahead in these tests. For doc‑heavy, long‑context reasoning and structured refactors, Claude 4.1 Opus shines. Use both.
Will you release the dataset you used?
I’m curating data for members and will document the schema. You should be able to swap in your own sources with minimal changes once the loaders are in place.
The Road Ahead
Over the next week:
Plug verified data loaders into the pricing engine
Lock down volatility/backtest formulas and add unit tests
Wire IBKR Gateway on Linux and paper‑trade the full loop
Expand the HTML dashboard with diagnostic plots (distributions, rolling risk)
Keep Claude 4.1 Opus and ChatGPT‑5 in a tight feedback loop: generate with one, audit with the other
Once the system holds up under paper trading, I’ll put small capital to work in micro contracts and scale contingent on drawdown/risk metrics staying within spec.
Key Takeaways
ChatGPT‑5 can now produce production‑adjacent scaffolding: clean C++, structured JSON, and a functional HTML/Chart.js dashboard—often with little iteration.
Real‑world quant work still requires strict validation. I saw hallucinations in volatility and backtest outputs; those must be fixed before any deployment.
Claude 4.1 Opus remains invaluable for long‑context, multi‑file reasoning and rapid Streamlit builds. Together, the models make a potent workflow.
Execution belongs on Linux with IBKR Gateway for reliability and automation. No GUI dependencies if I can help it.
The winning formula isn’t a single model—it’s a disciplined, multi‑model, test‑first process that treats LLMs as accelerators, not oracles.
Want Updates and Deep‑Dive Material?
If you want ongoing notes, code drops, and futures/options fundamentals that underpin these strategies, visit quantabsnet.com and join the list. Members get access to the packaged projects, IBKR integration progress, and live trading debriefs as I roll out micro options/futures with tight risk controls.
Stay safe, stay systematic, and remember: the best edge is a process that refuses to trade unverified numbers.
Comments