Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Claude Opus 4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking #184 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Opus 4.6 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 37 to Claude Opus 4.6.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 9
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 37
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Opus 4.6 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Δ | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.673.0 |
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.668.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.669.1 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.636.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.677.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Claude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | Claude Opus 4.61M | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | 84.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.7% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 66.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 61.85% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 45.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 65.3% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 57.57% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 37.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 84.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.9% | 18.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 91.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 53% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 40% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 45.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.4% | 44.6% | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Opus 4.6 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Opus 4.6 today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable Claude Opus 4.6: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.