Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs MAI-Thinking-1

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.

45.88/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); MAI-Thinking-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 MAI-Thinking-1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 12 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude 4.1 Opus only
3
MAI-Thinking-1 only
12
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; MAI-Thinking-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 MAI-Thinking-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.

MAI-Thinking-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. MAI-Thinking-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 scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔMAI-Thinking-1
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin 9.0MAI-Thinking-165.5
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-146.0
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-172.5
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-189.7
Inst. FollowingClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · MAI-Thinking-1
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 73.5%
    Winner: Claude 4.1 OpusΔ 1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 73.5%. 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 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
JobBenchSource 21.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%73.5%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%Not comparable
GPQASource 84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1207Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMAI-Thinking-1Result
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude 4.1 Opus and MAI-Thinking-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 MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 65.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.