Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-4.1 nano
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 171× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-4.1 nano in 2 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 32.2 to 8.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 28.9% for GPT-4.1 nano.
- GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 27.9 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2025-04-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 38 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 19% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1306 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 8.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 33% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1286 |
| DTBench | 80% | 52.5% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 5.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 129.62 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 33.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math GPT-4.1 nano leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 28.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1274 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 36.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 70% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 48.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1272 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 55% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal GPT-4.1 nano leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1063 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1260 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1270 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1198 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1261 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1267 |
| IFEval | — | 84.3% |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1283 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 25% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1285 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1260 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1277 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 946 |
| WildBench | — | 81.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-4.1 nano?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 171× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-4.1 nano better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-4.1 nano share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 nano has 38.