Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs GPT-5.4

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

36.55/100
Margin
37.7pts
winning →
OpenAI
74.24/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking #184 (Supported); GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GPT-5.4 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 43 to GPT-5.4.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
9
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
0
GPT-5.4 only
43
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GPT-5.4 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.

GPT-5.4 has the larger context window at 1.05M, 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 scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GPT-5.4
CategoryClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingΔGPT-5.4
AgenticClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.477.2
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.457.7
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.457.6
MathClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.442.5
MultimodalClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.473.2

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot availableGPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/sGPT-5.474 tok/sGPT-5.4 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 sGPT-5.4151.79 sClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking200KGPT-5.41.05MGPT-5.4 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 71.4%87.1%GPT-5.4 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 75.1%Not comparable
CyberGymSource 79.0%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 82.7%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 75%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 70.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 54.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 60.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 41.1%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 33.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 44.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1395Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.89%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 15.3%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 38.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 6.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
AA-SciCodeSource 40.9%56.6%GPT-5.4 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource 87.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.7%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 85.3%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 67.42%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
AA-LCRSource 66.3%74.0%GPT-5.4 leads
CritPtSource 0.0%23.4%GPT-5.4 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 33.7%51.4%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 80.9%92.0%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-HLESource 11.9%41.6%GPT-5.4 leads
GPQASource 92.8%Not comparable
HLESource 52.1%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 39.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.8%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 40.1%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 59.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 5.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 50.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource 48.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.600%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 27.100%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 67.9%78.4%GPT-5.4 leads
MMMU-ProSource 81.2%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 53.2%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 82.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.8%Not comparable
ERQASource 65.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 61.1%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 85.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource 41.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 77.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1252Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 Opus ThinkingGPT-5.4Result
AA-IFBenchSource 55.4%73.9%GPT-5.4 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and GPT-5.4 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 GPT-5.4 today?

Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable GPT-5.4: $2.50 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

Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.