Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

45.87/100
Margin
23.1pts
winning →
Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus unranked; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: Claude 4.1 Opus supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 15 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude 4.1 Opus only
3
Inkling only
15
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 48. 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 $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 16.0x on output cost alone. Inkling 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. Inkling 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 Inkling
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔInkling
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin← 5.9Inkling68.6
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling69.4
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling51.7
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling97.1
MultimodalClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling76.5
Inst. FollowingClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · Inkling

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 77.6%
    Winner: InklingΔ 3.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusInklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputInkling has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
JobBenchSource 21.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource —1258Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%77.6%Inkling leads
SWE-bench ProSource —54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —63.8%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource —87.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —87.9%Not comparable
HLESource —46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —30%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
AIME26Source —97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1211—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource —82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusInklingResult
IFBenchSource —79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 77.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Inkling?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.