# Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5 Nano

> Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5 Nano costs 218× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-gpt-5-nano
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 33

## Summary

- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-5 Nano in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 62.4 to 39.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 37.1% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 7.9% for GPT-5 Nano.
- GPT-5 Nano is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GPT-5 Nano accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 33.5 |
| Rank | 142 | 241 |
| Context | 200K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.05 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- GPT-5 Nano: 33.6 (#254)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 38.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1351 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 718.67 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 34.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- GPT-5 Nano: 25.8 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | 21.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 51.5% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- GPT-5 Nano: 16.3 (#306)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 27% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1328 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 9% |
| DTBench | 80% | 62.7% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 7.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 139.38 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 59.1 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 2.6% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 62.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 20.7% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- GPT-5 Nano: 29.4 (#241)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 20% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 2.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 81.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1317 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 8.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 2.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 12% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 54.6% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 95.2% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- GPT-5 Nano: 35.9 (#178)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 69.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1321 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 11.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 77.8% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 67.9% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- GPT-5 Nano: 31.3 (#108)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | 37.2% |
| LMArena Vision | — | 1159 |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- GPT-5 Nano: 45.3 (#172)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1313 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1356 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1327 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1226 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1269 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1296 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1360 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- GPT-5 Nano: 75.0 (#79)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1306 |
| IFEval | — | 93.2% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- GPT-5 Nano: 31.3 (#281)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1312 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 44.4% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- GPT-5 Nano: 39.1 (#249)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1320 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1249 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1311 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 705 |
| WildBench | — | 80.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5 Nano?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5 Nano costs 218× 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-5 Nano?

GPT-5 Nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 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-5 Nano better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 33.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5 Nano does, with 400K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Nano share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5 Nano has 49.