Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Claude 4.1 Opus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 52 against 41. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU, 76 to 91.8. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
o1 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.
Pick Claude 4.1 Opus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude 4.1 Opus
64
o1
83.8
Claude 4.1 Opus
52
o1
41
Claude 4.1 Opus
75.8
o1
74.3
Claude 4.1 Opus
83
o1
92.2
Claude 4.1 Opus is ahead overall, 69 to 51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU, where the scores are 76 and 91.8.
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.8 versus 64. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 52 versus 41. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 74.3. Inside this category, AIME 2024 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 83. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.