Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Claude 4.1 Opus only
1 Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) only
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 74.5
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 74.5 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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 Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has no comparable published API token rate.
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 Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude 4.1 Opus 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 Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has no comparable published API token 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 Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
claude-opus-4-6
Anthropic model ID documentationCached-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 Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
text, image
Anthropic model overviewDocumented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewReasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
2026-02-01
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).
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
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.