Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Claude Opus 4.5
Updated September 29, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 45
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking · Supported: Claude Opus 4.5How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking42.6Claude Opus 4.5
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
45 Claude Opus 4.5 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- 41.5
- Estimated · #94/169
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 49.3
- Estimated · #62/169
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- 65.1
- #69/124
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 30.6
- #114/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 31.2
- Estimated · #78/117
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 15 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 42.6
- Estimated · #56/143
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- 74.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 73.3
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- 61.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 24.5
- #48/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 82.9
- #2/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- Not ranked
- Claude Opus 4.5
- 57.9
- #6/7
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 41.5Estimated · #94/169 | 49.3Estimated · #62/169 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 65.1#69/124 | 30.6#114/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 31.2Estimated · #78/117 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 15 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 42.6Estimated · #56/143 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 74.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 61.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | 24.5#48/50 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 82.9#2/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 57.9#6/7 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 4.5
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 4.5
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
- API rate not published
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Claude Opus 4.5
- $1.35
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingClaude Opus 4.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
200K
Claude Opus 4.5
200K
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
No comparable hosted API rate
Claude Opus 4.5
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
2025-08-01
Claude Opus 4.5
2025-11-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking or Claude Opus 4.5?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking or Claude Opus 4.5?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking or Claude Opus 4.5?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.559.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.559.6%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.552.3%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.570.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.523.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.526.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.543.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.542.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.571.8%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.576.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.550.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.564.23%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.532.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.580.9%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.584.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.557.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.577.5%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.543.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.574.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.568.5%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.584.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.545.7%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.567.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.587%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.589.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.596.6%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.592.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.530.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
Math
AIME26
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.595.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.592.9%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.593.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.585.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.584.0%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.520.690%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking—Claude Opus 4.54.167%SourceNot directly comparable
45 public results · 0 shared
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Claude Opus 4.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 29, 2026