Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Claude Opus 4.5 
GPT-6.1 Sol Verdict
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 60.0.
- Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning, human preference.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is 2.5× cheaper ($4.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 60.0 | 69.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 74.5 | 63.9 |
| Coding score | 60.6 | 72.4 |
| Composite score | 62.5 | 79.0 |
| Instruction following score | 54.1 | – |
| Knowledge score | 60.2 | 78.8 |
| Long context score | 63.8 | 66.8 |
| Maths score | 64.0 | 72.5 |
| Multimodal score | 57.3 | 66.2 |
| Reasoning score | 54.5 | 76.4 |
| Human preference score | – | 68.1 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | 48 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 14.1 s | 326.9 s |
| Context window | 200k | 1.1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 95.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 100.0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 100.0% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 73.9% |
| Terminal-Bench | – | 58.2% |
| SciCode | – | 54.2% |
| APEX-Agents | – | 60.0% |
| LMArena Text | – | 1484 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1507 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1545 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1755 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1288 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 11.7 |
| LiveBench | – | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 92.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.4% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 54.5% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 82.7% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 74.2% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 29.1 | 51.8 |
| IFBench | 58.0% | – |
| AA-LCR | 77.3% | 83.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | 74.0% | 86.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | 14 | 41.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 47.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 86.6% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 30.1% | 52.9% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 54.2% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 89.5% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | 95.4% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 83.7% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.3% | – |
| IOI | – | 96.9% |
| LegalBench | 84.6% | – |
| CorpFin | 65.1% | – |
| TaxEval | 74.9% | – |
| MedQA | 95.9% | – |
| MGSM | 95.2% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 76.4% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 85.9% | – |
| Vals Index | – | 61.1 |
| MultiChallenge | 59.0% | – |
| PRBench Finance | 46.2% | – |
| PRBench Legal | 44.2% | – |
| VISTA | 46.4% | – |
| MultiNRC | 48.6% | – |
| TutorBench | 51.2% | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80.0% | 96.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | 94.2% |
| ARC-AGI-3 | – | 96.2% |
| CritPt | 4.6% | 31.7% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | – | 53.8% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 50.0% |
| BioMysteryBench | – | 79.6% |
| CaseLaw v2 | 62.6% | – |
| Code Migration | – | 65.1% |
| CyberBench | – | 39.3% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 70.8% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 52.0% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 38.5% |
| MedCode | 49.2% | 48.8% |
| MedScribe | 85.3% | 86.5% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | 83.0% | – |
| MortgageTax | 67.7% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 46.4% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 59.3% |
| SAGE | 52.1% | 46.5% |
| SREBench | – | 50.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 62.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | 53.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 55.0% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 20.6% | 88.9% |
| FORTRESS | 9.6% | – |
| MASK | 92.5% | – |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1488 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1462 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1488 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1487 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1496 |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 61.0% |
| EBR-bench | – | 54.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | – | 80.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | – | 56.1% |
| AutomationBench | – | 64.9% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 31.0% |
| MLCR | – | 33.9% |
| Harvey LAB | – | 6.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 46.6% | 62.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 39.0% | 45.7% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | – | 1557 |
| DeepSearchQA | 24.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 60.0. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (72 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than GPT-6.1 Sol for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (75 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper: $4.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- GPT-6.1 Sol streams faster: 56 against 48 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.1M against 200k tokens.