Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.1

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 49.0 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.1 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 48 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

GPT-5.1 OpenAI

49.0

Rank #53 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 48 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-5.1 in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 32.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 69.2% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 17.6% for GPT-5.1.
  • GPT-5.1 is cheaper at $1.25 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index58.249.0
Released2026-02-042025-11-13
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M400K
Max output128K128K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$10
Results tracked6863

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
SWE-bench Verified78.7%68%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%66%
LMArena WebDev15471395
GSO41.2%13.7%
WeirdML78%60.8%
LMArena Coding15361454
ALE-Bench996.51,192
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—43.3%
LiveBench Coding—72.5%
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), GPT-5.1: 32.7 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
Terminal-Bench79.8%47.6%
DeepResearch Bench55.3%42.8%
LMArena Search12531199
Vending-Bench 28,0181,473
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
GBAEval44.1%—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
ARC-AGI-269.2%17.6%
SimpleBench67.6%53.2%
ARC-AGI-194%72.8%
Chess Puzzles17%32%
EnigmaEval7.6%11.2%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271457
Mystery Game Puzzles25%19%
DTBench91.2%90.1%
LMCA55.8%43.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24149.64
ForecastBench6058.1
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
CritPt—4.9%
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—95.8%
LiveBench Data Analysis—72.1%
LiveBench—78.8%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%88.6%
LMArena Math15191447
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%31%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%12.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
Omni-MATH—46.4%
LiveBench Math—94.5%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
GPQA Diamond90.5%87.6%
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%23.7%
SimpleQA Verified47%48%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%10.9%
LMArena Expert15461470
MMLU-Pro—57.9%
GPQA (HELM)—44.2%

Multimodal GPT-5.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
LMArena Vision13161250
LMArena Document15071403
VPCT—58.7%
Furniture Assembly28.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
LMArena Non-English14891431
LMArena Chinese15511495
LMArena French15131450
LMArena German15021438
LMArena Japanese14841453
LMArena Korean14641401
LMArena Russian14971435
LMArena Spanish15101433

Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
LMArena Instruction Following15231443
LiveBench Instruction Following—93.3%
IFEval—93.5%

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
CL-bench20.7%23.7%
CL-bench Life17%17.3%
LMArena Longer Query15201447

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.1
LMArena Text15031443
LMArena Creative Writing15051427
LMArena Multi-Turn15131450
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
WildBench—86.3%
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—80.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than GPT-5.1?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 49.0 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.1 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.1?

GPT-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.1 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 46.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.1 share?

48 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1 has 63.

Related comparisons

Go deeper