Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.1
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.5 wins on 22/22 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.5 wins 22 of 22 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · coding · general.
Category leads
knowledge·Claude Opus 4.5coding·Claude Opus 4.5general·Claude Opus 4.5math·Claude Opus 4.5reasoning·Claude Opus 4.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.5
#179 by perf·#6 by attention
Claude Opus 4.1
#213 by perf·#6 by attention
Best value
Claude Opus 4.5
3.4x better value than Claude Opus 4.1
Claude Opus 4.5
2.8 pts/$
$15.00/M
Claude Opus 4.1
0.8 pts/$
$45.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
22 benchmarks · 2 models
Claude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.1
Chess Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +5.3
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.5
7.4
Claude Opus 4.1
2.1
Cybench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +40.0
Cybench · evaluates AI on real Capture-The-Flag cybersecurity challenges, testing vulnerability analysis, exploitation, and security reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
82.0
Claude Opus 4.1
42.0
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.5
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.5
54.8
Claude Opus 4.1
48.3
Dtbench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +16.5
Claude Opus 4.5
83.1
Claude Opus 4.1
66.7
Ebr Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.3
Claude Opus 4.5
14.3
Claude Opus 4.1
7.9
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +13.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
20.7
Claude Opus 4.1
7.2
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
4.2
Claude Opus 4.1
4.2
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.4
Claude Opus 4.5
4.9
Claude Opus 4.1
2.4
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +21.8
Claude Opus 4.5
34.4
Claude Opus 4.1
12.6
Gdpval
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +1.9
Claude Opus 4.5
45.5
Claude Opus 4.1
43.6
GPQA diamond
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +11.7
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.5
81.4
Claude Opus 4.1
69.7
HLE
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +14.4
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Claude Opus 4.5
21.4
Claude Opus 4.1
7.1
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +8.7
Claude Opus 4.5
52.3
Claude Opus 4.1
43.6
Metr Time Horizons
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +8.2
Claude Opus 4.5
75.0
Claude Opus 4.1
66.8
Mystery Game Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +1.1
Claude Opus 4.5
14.1
Claude Opus 4.1
13.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +17.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.5
86.1
Claude Opus 4.1
68.9
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +2.4
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.5
54.4
Claude Opus 4.1
52.0
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +7.0
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.5
41.8
Claude Opus 4.1
34.8
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +3.3
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Opus 4.5
76.7
Claude Opus 4.1
73.3
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +25.1
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Opus 4.5
63.1
Claude Opus 4.1
38.0
VPCT
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +7.5
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Claude Opus 4.5
10.0
Claude Opus 4.1
2.5
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +17.9
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.5
63.7
Claude Opus 4.1
45.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 7.4 | 2.1 |
Cybench Cybench · evaluates AI on real Capture-The-Flag cybersecurity challenges, testing vulnerability analysis, exploitation, and security reasoning. | 82.0 | 42.0 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 54.8 | 48.3 |
Dtbench | 83.1 | 66.7 |
Ebr Bench | 14.3 | 7.9 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 20.7 | 7.2 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.2 | 4.2 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 4.9 | 2.4 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 34.4 | 12.6 |
Gdpval | 45.5 | 43.6 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 81.4 | 69.7 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 21.4 | 7.1 |
Lmca | 52.3 | 43.6 |
Metr Time Horizons | 75.0 | 66.8 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 14.1 | 13.0 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 86.1 | 68.9 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.4 | 52.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 41.8 | 34.8 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 76.7 | 73.3 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 63.1 | 38.0 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 10.0 | 2.5 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 63.7 | 45.9 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $100.00 | |
| $15.00 | $75.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $300.00 |
People also compared