Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
41
GPT-4.1 mini
46
Pick GPT-4.1 mini if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+25.4 difference
Knowledge
+4.8 difference
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
GPT-4.1 mini
$3 / $15
$0.4 / $1.6
N/A
80 t/s
N/A
0.76s
200K
1M
Pick GPT-4.1 mini if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
GPT-4.1 mini is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 46 to 41. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-4.1 mini's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 64.2 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49% to 23.6%. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 9.4x on output cost alone. GPT-4.1 mini gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
GPT-4.1 mini is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 46 to 41. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49% and 23.6%.
GPT-4.1 mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 49 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.