# Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.1

> GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-gpt-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 39

## Summary

- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and GPT-5.1 in 9 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 52.2 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 7% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 32% for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 is cheaper at $1.25 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 49.0 |
| Rank | 142 | 53 |
| Context | 200K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 68% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1395 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 60.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,192 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| SciCode | — | 43.3% |
| GSO | — | 13.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.5% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- GPT-5.1: 32.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 47.6% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | 42.8% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | 1199 |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 1,473 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 53.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 32% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 19% |
| DTBench | 80% | 90.1% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 43.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 149.64 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 58.1 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 17.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 72.8% |
| CritPt | — | 4.9% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 95.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 72.1% |
| LiveBench | — | 78.8% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 88.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 31% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 46.4% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 94.5% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 87.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | 23.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 10.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1470 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 57.9% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 44.2% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | 58.7% |
| LMArena Vision | — | 1250 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1403 |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1450 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1453 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1435 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1433 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1443 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 93.3% |
| IFEval | — | 93.5% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1447 |
| CL-bench | — | 23.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 17.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1427 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1450 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| WildBench | — | 86.3% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 80.2% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5.1?

GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.1?

GPT-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.1 better for coding?

GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.4 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1 share?

39 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1 has 63.