Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Sonnet 4.6 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 24 to Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 9
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 0
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Sonnet 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.
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 Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 |
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | 79.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.92% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 36.9% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 46.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 79.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 60.7% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 51.48% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 35.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 79.9% | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.9% | 13.2% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -2.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 38.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.4% | 41.2% | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6 today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3.00 input / $15.00 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.