Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-4.1 mini

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

67.84/100
Margin
24.7pts
← winning
43.1/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #19 (Supported); GPT-4.1 mini #160 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-4.1 mini share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 30 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 6 to GPT-4.1 mini.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
16
Claude Opus 4.6 only
30
GPT-4.1 mini only
6
Comparable categories
3 / 8

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.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.84 to 43.1. 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 coding, where it averages 68.1 against 23.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 80.8% to 23.6%.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 mini. That is roughly 15.6x on output cost alone.

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 Opus 4.6 and GPT-4.1 mini
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔGPT-4.1 mini
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 44.5GPT-4.1 mini23.6
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin← 31.8GPT-4.1 mini4.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 4.9GPT-4.1 mini64.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 miniNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 miniNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-4.1 mini88.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · GPT-4.1 mini

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 23.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 57.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; GPT-4.1 mini scored 23.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 40.700%B 4.483%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 36.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; GPT-4.1 mini scored 4.483%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 64.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 27.1
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; GPT-4.1 mini scored 64.2%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputGPT-4.1 mini$0.4 input / $1.6 outputGPT-4.1 mini has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sGPT-4.1 mini80 tok/sGPT-4.1 mini has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sGPT-4.1 mini0.76 sGPT-4.1 mini reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MGPT-4.1 mini1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%52.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —1.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —0.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —508Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%23.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%40.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —20.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%42.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%0.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
GPQASource 91.3%64.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%14.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%66.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%4.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-50.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%17.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%82.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMLUSource —87.5%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%4.483%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%58.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251027Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-4.1 miniResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%38.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
IFEvalSource —88.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.84 to 43.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.8% and 23.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 4.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 24, 2026