Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #149 (Supported); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude Opus 5 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 77 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 2
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 77
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 44.8. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.5 against 74.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.5% to 96%.
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 5. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus 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.
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 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin→ 15.0 | Claude Opus 589.5 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 590.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 590.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 564.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 566.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 96%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 21.5SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Claude Opus 5 scored 96%. Claude Opus 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 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | — | 43.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 23.58% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 93.74% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 11.7% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1861 | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | — | 23.5 turns | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 26.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 55.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 68.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1720 | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 74.5% | 96% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 59.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 63.6% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 93.0% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 70.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 55.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLESource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | — | 72.5% | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 54.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1207 | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (no tools)Source | — | 29.6% | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | — | 0.366 | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | — | 0.821 | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 44.8. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 96%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 74.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.