Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs GPT-4.1 mini

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

44.8/100
Margin
1.7pts
← winning
43.1/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #149 (Supported); GPT-4.1 mini #160 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and GPT-4.1 mini share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 19 to GPT-4.1 mini.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude 4.1 Opus only
1
GPT-4.1 mini only
19
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude 4.1 Opus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 3 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 4.1 Opus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 44.8 versus 43.1. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude 4.1 Opus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 74.5 against 23.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.5% to 23.6%.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 46.9x on output cost alone. GPT-4.1 mini gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.

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 scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and GPT-4.1 mini
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔGPT-4.1 mini
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin 50.9GPT-4.1 mini23.6
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 mini64.2
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 mini4.5
Inst. FollowingClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 mini88.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · GPT-4.1 mini
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 23.6%
    Winner: Claude 4.1 OpusΔ 50.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; GPT-4.1 mini scored 23.6%. Claude 4.1 Opus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputGPT-4.1 mini$0.4 input / $1.6 outputGPT-4.1 mini has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sGPT-4.1 mini80 tok/sGPT-4.1 mini has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sGPT-4.1 mini0.76 sGPT-4.1 mini reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KGPT-4.1 mini1MGPT-4.1 mini lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
JobBenchSource 21.9%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 52.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 508Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%23.6%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 20.2%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
AA-LCRSource 42.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%14.8%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
MMLUSource 87.5%Not comparable
GPQASource 64.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 66.4%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -50.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 17.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 82.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 4.483%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12071027Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 58.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusGPT-4.1 miniResult
IFEvalSource 88.5%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 38.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude 4.1 Opus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 44.8 to 43.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 23.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026