Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
80
GPT-4.1 nano
28
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #5 · GPT-4.1 nano unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Knowledge
+15.9 difference
Inst. Following
+3.8 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
GPT-4.1 nano
$null / $null
$0.1 / $0.4
46 t/s
181 t/s
1.01s
0.63s
200K
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 28. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66.2 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87% to 50.3%. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 28. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87% and 50.3%.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.2 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 83.2 versus 79.4. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.