Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 39 to 28. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1 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 64K for Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1.
Pick Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
34
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1
71.4
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
21.7
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1
54.8
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking is ahead overall, 39 to 28. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU, where the scores are 38 and 71.4.
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.4 versus 34. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 54.8 versus 21.7. Inside this category, HumanEval 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.