Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
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 Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude Sonnet 4.6 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 29 to Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 0
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 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 $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 4.6. That is roughly 5.0x 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 Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 5.4 | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 79.6%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 5.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | 36.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 79.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.92% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 74.5% | 79.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 60.7% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 51.48% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 35.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 79.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 13.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -2.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 38.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 41.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 79.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 69.1. 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.