Agentic
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #102/152
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 40.0
- Estimated · #116/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude 4 Sonnet
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.02 versus 39.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude 4 Sonnet
Claude 4 Sonnet has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude 4 Sonnet
Claude 4 Sonnet has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude 4 Sonnet are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude 4 Sonnet are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Shared
1 Claude 4 Sonnet only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 0
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #103/151
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 40.0
- Estimated · #117/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 51.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 39.4
- Estimated · #136/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 51.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 53.6
- #77/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude 4 Sonnet | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 42.9Estimated · #102/152 | 40.0Estimated · #116/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 42.9Estimated · #103/151 | 40.0Estimated · #117/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 51.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 39.4Estimated · #136/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 51.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 53.6#77/123 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 4.1 Opus: 74.5%Claude 4 Sonnet: 72.7%Normalized gap 1.8Claude 4.1 Opus source Claude 4 Sonnet source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
Claude 4 Sonnet has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
Claude 4 Sonnet has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusClaude 4 Sonnet
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
Claude 4 Sonnet
200K
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
Claude 4 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
Claude 4 Sonnet
2025-05-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.02 versus 39.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.195. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.81.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence3 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Shared sourceClaude 4.1 Opus21.9%Claude 4 Sonnet18.4%Claude 4.1 Opus leads this result
Gert Labs
Claude 4.1 Opus—Claude 4 Sonnet39.66%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude 4 Sonnet?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.02 versus 39.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude 4 Sonnet?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.9 to 40. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude 4 Sonnet are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude 4 Sonnet?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 42.9 to 40. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude 4 Sonnet are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude 4 Sonnet?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.0105 on Claude 4 Sonnet; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.195; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.81. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude 4 Sonnet?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude 4 Sonnet
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.