Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
1-bit Bonsai 4B
~44
0/8 categoriesClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking
58
Winner · 4/8 categories1-bit Bonsai 4B· Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Pick Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. 1-bit Bonsai 4B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 58 to 44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 68.7 against 41.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 28.7% to 80.9%.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while 1-bit Bonsai 4B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 32K for 1-bit Bonsai 4B.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | 1-bit Bonsai 4B | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 43.3% |
| BrowseComp | — | 54% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 47% |
| Coding | ||
| HumanEval | — | 68% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 45% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 29% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78% |
| OfficeQA Pro | — | 69% |
| ReasoningClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking wins | ||
| MuSR | 41.4% | 72% |
| BBH | — | 86% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 62% |
| MRCRv2 | — | 74% |
| KnowledgeClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking wins | ||
| GPQA | 28.7% | 80.9% |
| MMLU | — | 76% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 72% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 76% |
| HLE | — | 8% |
| FrontierScience | — | 41% |
| SimpleQA | — | 36% |
| Instruction FollowingClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking wins | ||
| IFEval | 69.6% | 88% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MGSM | — | 82% |
| MMLU-ProX | — | 73% |
| MathematicsClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking wins | ||
| MATH-500 | 65.8% | 87% |
| AIME 2023 | — | 38% |
| AIME 2024 | — | 40% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 90% |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | — | 34% |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | — | 36% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 35% |
| BRUMO 2025 | — | 37% |
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is ahead overall, 58 to 44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 28.7% and 80.9%.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 49 versus 28.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 70.7 versus 65.8. Inside this category, MATH-500 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 68.7 versus 41.4. Inside this category, MuSR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 88 versus 69.6. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.