Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 90 to 35. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.3 against 23.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME 2024, 99 to 23.1.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 46.9x on output cost alone.
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.6
85.7
GPT-4.1 mini
75.9
Claude Opus 4.6
82
GPT-4.1 mini
23.6
Claude Opus 4.6
97.3
GPT-4.1 mini
23.1
Claude Opus 4.6
95
GPT-4.1 mini
88.5
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead overall, 90 to 35. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME 2024, where the scores are 99 and 23.1.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 75.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.3 versus 23.1. Inside this category, AIME 2024 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 95 versus 88.5. 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.