Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Opus 4.5
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude Opus 4.5 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 55 to Claude Opus 4.5.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.5. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone.
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 | Δ | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 2.8 | Claude Opus 4.571.7 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.562.6 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.564.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.558.1 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.557.5 |
| Multilingual | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.585.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.569.9 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.569.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 80.9%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 4.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Claude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | 32.3% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 66.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 66.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 59.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 23.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 26.4% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 42.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 71.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 76.4% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 50.6% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 86.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.23% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 96.6% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 30.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 12.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -3.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 40.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 75.4% | Not comparable |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.9% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 20.690% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.167% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1207 | 1277 | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 68.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 45.7% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 67.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 71.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 80.9%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 71.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.