Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs o3-mini
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 34 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 34 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and o3-mini in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 31.6 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 60% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 22.8% for o3-mini.
- o3-mini is cheaper at $1.10 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2024-12-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 200K |
| Max output | 32K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 51 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69), o3-mini: 41.4 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 43.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1378 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 60.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| SciCode | — | 39.8% |
| GSO | — | 1.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 82.7% |
| CadEval | — | 54% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), o3-mini: 29.3 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 42% | 22.5% |
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), o3-mini: 16.3 (#295)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 22.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1366 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 7% |
| DTBench | 80% | 68.8% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 140.35 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 59.6 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 34.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 89.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 70.6% |
| LiveBench | — | 75.9% |
Math o3-mini leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), o3-mini: 27.6 (#236)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 18.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 76.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 12.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 96.5% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), o3-mini: 38.3 (#135)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 77% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | 17.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1364 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), o3-mini: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), o3-mini: 45.9 (#159)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1319 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1333 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1303 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1286 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1321 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), o3-mini: 75.3 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1338 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 84.4% |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), o3-mini: 33.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1343 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 50% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), o3-mini: 50.4 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1337 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1286 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | 61.7% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1320 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 50.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than o3-mini?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. o3-mini costs 16× 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 o3-mini?
o3-mini is cheaper. It lists at $1.10 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or o3-mini better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 200K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and o3-mini share?
34 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and o3-mini has 51.