Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs gpt-oss-120b
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 36.0 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 427× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and gpt-oss-120b in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where gpt-oss-120b leads 50.6 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 60% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 22.1% for gpt-oss-120b.
- gpt-oss-120b is cheaper at $0.037 / $0.17 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- gpt-oss-120b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 36.0 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2025-08-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Max output | 32K | 41K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.037 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.17 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 48 |
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: 44.3 (#69), gpt-oss-120b: 33.2 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 48.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1380 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 575.62 |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | 1.41 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 26% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| SciCode | — | 36% |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), gpt-oss-120b: 12.1 (#145)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 18.7% |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | 56.6% |
| APEX-Agents | — | 4.4% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | -21.53 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), gpt-oss-120b: 19.5 (#236)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 22.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1364 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 2% |
| DTBench | 80% | 76.3% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 22.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 139.94 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 58.6% |
| CritPt | — | 1.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 25% |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math gpt-oss-120b leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), gpt-oss-120b: 50.6 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 88.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 68.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), gpt-oss-120b: 42.3 (#89)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 75.8% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | 15.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 14.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1356 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 79.5% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 68.4% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), gpt-oss-120b: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), gpt-oss-120b: 48.2 (#142)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1350 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1384 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1370 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1355 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1332 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1343 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1388 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), gpt-oss-120b: 69.5 (#168)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1318 |
| IFEval | — | 83.6% |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), gpt-oss-120b: 31.4 (#273)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1319 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 44.4% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), gpt-oss-120b: 46.7 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1274 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | 77.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1340 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 961 |
| WildBench | — | 84.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than gpt-oss-120b?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 36.0 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 427× 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-oss-120b?
gpt-oss-120b is cheaper. It lists at $0.037 per million input tokens and $0.17 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or gpt-oss-120b better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and gpt-oss-120b share?
33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and gpt-oss-120b has 48.