Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Laguna M.1
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #149 (Supported); Laguna M.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Laguna M.1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 4 to Laguna M.1.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 3
- Laguna M.1 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude 4.1 Opus makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Laguna M.1 is the better fit if you need the larger 256K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
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
Claude 4.1 Opus and Laguna M.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Laguna M.1 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. Laguna M.1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | Claude 4.1 Opus | Δ | Laguna M.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 9.7 | Laguna M.164.8 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Laguna M.145.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 74.6%Winner: Laguna M.1Δ 0.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Laguna M.1 scored 74.6%. Laguna M.1 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 | Laguna M.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Laguna M.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Laguna M.1256K | Laguna M.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Laguna M.1?
Claude 4.1 Opus and Laguna M.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Laguna M.1?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 64.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.