# Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-4.1 mini

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 mini costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-gpt-4-1-mini
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 10 categories and GPT-4.1 mini in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 10.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 98.5% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 3.5% for GPT-4.1 mini.
- GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- GPT-4.1 mini accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 33.6 |
| Rank | 3 | 240 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $4 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $1.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 30.6 (#293)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 66.9% | 40.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1367 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 23.9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 32.4% |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 48.9% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| CadEval | — | 16% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 33.3 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 50.5% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 10.8 (#340)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 3.5% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1349 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | 7% |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 68.8% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 21.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 135.01 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 48.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 7% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 24.1 (#270)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | 6.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 44.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1343 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 49.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 87.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 4.5% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 34.7 (#194)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 65.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | 12.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1338 |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 78.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 61.4% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 35.8 (#82)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1181 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 45.7 (#166)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1318 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1329 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1324 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1319 |
| LMArena German | — | 1351 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1290 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1298 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 73.7 (#118)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1333 |
| IFEval | — | 90.4% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 31.8 (#275)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1344 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 44.4% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3)
- GPT-4.1 mini: 48.6 (#199)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1300 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | 1147 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1354 |
| WildBench | — | 83.8% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than GPT-4.1 mini?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 mini costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or GPT-4.1 mini?

GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or GPT-4.1 mini better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 mini does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-4.1 mini share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 mini has 47.