Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
GPT-5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.6
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on 18/23 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 18 of 23 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · arena.
Category leads
agentic·Claude Opus 4.6reasoning·Claude Opus 4.6arena·Claude Opus 4.6knowledge·Claude Opus 4.6general·Claude Opus 4.6math·Claude Opus 4.6coding·Claude Opus 4.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
GPT-5.1
#138 by perf·#4 by attention
Claude Opus 4.6
#136 by perf·#6 by attention
Best value
GPT-5.1
2.7x better value than Claude Opus 4.6
GPT-5.1
8.6 pts/$
$5.63/M
Claude Opus 4.6
3.2 pts/$
$15.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
23 benchmarks · 2 models
GPT-5.1Claude Opus 4.6
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +28.8
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
GPT-5.1
17.5
Claude Opus 4.6
46.3
ARC-AGI
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +21.2
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
GPT-5.1
72.8
Claude Opus 4.6
94.0
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +51.5
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
GPT-5.1
17.6
Claude Opus 4.6
69.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +196.0
GPT-5.1
1341.0
Claude Opus 4.6
1537.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +58.8
GPT-5.1
1438.5
Claude Opus 4.6
1497.3
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.1 leads by +15.8
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
GPT-5.1
28.4
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
Cl Bench
GPT-5.1 leads by +3.0
GPT-5.1
23.7
Claude Opus 4.6
20.7
Cl Bench Life
GPT-5.1 leads by +0.3
GPT-5.1
17.3
Claude Opus 4.6
17.0
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +12.5
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
GPT-5.1
42.8
Claude Opus 4.6
55.3
Dtbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +1.8
GPT-5.1
83.5
Claude Opus 4.6
85.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.1 leads by +13.8
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
GPT-5.1
54.5
Claude Opus 4.6
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
GPT-5.1
20.8
Claude Opus 4.6
22.9
GPQA diamond
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.9
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
GPT-5.1
83.5
Claude Opus 4.6
87.4
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +27.5
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
GPT-5.1
13.7
Claude Opus 4.6
41.2
HLE
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +11.3
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%.
GPT-5.1
19.8
Claude Opus 4.6
31.1
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +14.0
GPT-5.1
51.6
Claude Opus 4.6
65.6
Mystery Game Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +6.6
GPT-5.1
10.8
Claude Opus 4.6
17.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
GPT-5.1
88.6
Claude Opus 4.6
94.4
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +17.3
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
GPT-5.1
43.8
Claude Opus 4.6
61.1
SimpleQA Verified
GPT-5.1 leads by +1.0
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
GPT-5.1
48.0
Claude Opus 4.6
47.0
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +10.7
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.
GPT-5.1
68.0
Claude Opus 4.6
78.7
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +32.2
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.
GPT-5.1
47.6
Claude Opus 4.6
79.8
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +17.2
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
GPT-5.1
60.8
Claude Opus 4.6
78.0
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 17.5 | 46.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 72.8 | 94.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 17.6 | 69.2 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1341.0 | 1537.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1438.5 | 1497.3 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 28.4 | 12.7 |
Cl Bench | 23.7 | 20.7 |
Cl Bench Life | 17.3 | 17.0 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 42.8 | 55.3 |
Dtbench | 83.5 | 85.3 |
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. | 54.5 | 40.7 |
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. | 20.8 | 22.9 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 83.5 | 87.4 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 13.7 | 41.2 |
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%. | 19.8 | 31.1 |
Lmca | 51.6 | 65.6 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 10.8 | 17.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 88.6 | 94.4 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 43.8 | 61.1 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 48.0 | 47.0 |
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. | 68.0 | 78.7 |
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. | 47.6 | 79.8 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 60.8 | 78.0 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $34.38 | |
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 |