Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
GPT-4o mini is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 43 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-4o mini's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 87.2 against 21.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HumanEval, 87.2 to 30.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4o mini 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 128K for GPT-4o mini.
Pick GPT-4o mini if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
GPT-4o mini
82
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
34
GPT-4o mini
87.2
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
21.7
GPT-4o mini
87
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
60
GPT-4o mini is ahead overall, 43 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HumanEval, where the scores are 87.2 and 30.
GPT-4o mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82 versus 34. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-4o mini has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 87.2 versus 21.7. Inside this category, HumanEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-4o mini has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 87 versus 60. Inside this category, MGSM 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.