Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude 4.1 Opus

Anthropic

42.02/100

Supported · Public rank #176

90% interval 37.047.1

Claude 4.1 Opus vs Solar Pro 4

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Upstage logo
Model B
Solar Pro 4

Upstage

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Solar Pro 4

    Solar Pro 4 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Solar Pro 4

    Solar Pro 4 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Solar Pro 4

    Solar Pro 4 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Claude 4.1 Opus only
1
Solar Pro 4 only
9
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
42.9
Estimated · #102/152
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
42.9
Estimated · #103/151
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not ranked
Solar Pro 4
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude 4.1 Opus
$0.0525
Fits in one request
Solar Pro 4
$0.0009
Fits in one request

Solar Pro 4 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude 4.1 Opus
$0.975
Fits in one request
Solar Pro 4
$0.0186
Fits in one request

Solar Pro 4 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude 4.1 Opus
$4.05
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Solar Pro 4
$0.03
Fits in one request

Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude 4.1 Opus

Not published

Solar Pro 4

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Upstage Solar Pro 4 launch post

Documented inputs

Claude 4.1 Opus

Not sourced

Solar Pro 4

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude 4.1 Opus

Not sourced

Solar Pro 4

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude 4.1 Opus

Not sourced

Solar Pro 4

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude 4.1 Opus

Non-Reasoning

Solar Pro 4

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude 4.1 Opus

Proprietary

Solar Pro 4

Proprietary

License

Claude 4.1 Opus

Proprietary

Solar Pro 4

Proprietary

Release date

Claude 4.1 Opus

2025-08-01

Solar Pro 4

2026-08-11

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.03.
Context tradeoff
Solar Pro 4 has the larger documented window (512K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence11 rows

Agentic

  • JobBench

    Claude 4.1 Opus21.9%
    Source
    Solar Pro 4

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 457.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 449.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 461.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 418.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude 4.1 Opus74.5%
    Source
    Solar Pro 470.6%
    Source

    Claude 4.1 Opus leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 457.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 487.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 489.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 486.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Claude 4.1 Opus
    Solar Pro 495.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Solar Pro 4?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Solar Pro 4?

Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or Solar Pro 4?

Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or Solar Pro 4?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.0009 on Solar Pro 4; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.03. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or Solar Pro 4?

Solar Pro 4 has the larger documented context window: 512K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs Solar Pro 4

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.