Model Comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
vs. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic
Recommended Pick
An Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding
Best Value
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
38.2 reasoning / $6.56/1M
Lowest Price
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
$3.75/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
59.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
36.5 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) is 5.0x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.3x as many tokens per second as Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) leads Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) by 20.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) leads Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) by 3.0 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) | An Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $18.75/1M | $3.75/1M |
| Output Cost | $75.00/1M | $15.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $32.81/1M | $6.56/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Release Date | Aug 5, 2025 | Sep 29, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 36.0 tok/s | 48.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 9223ms | 1440ms |
| Latency | 9223ms | 1440ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 31.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 59.1 | 38.2 |
| Intelligence | 42.0 | 37.1 |
| Coding | 36.5 | 33.5 |
| Math | 80.3 | 37.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 80.9% | 72.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 88.0% | 86.0% |
| HLE | 11.9% | 7.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 65.4% | 59.0% |
| AIME 2025 | 80.3% | 37.0% |
| SciCode | 40.9% | 42.8% |
| LCR | 66.3% | 51.3% |
| IFBench | 55.4% | 42.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 71.4% | 70.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 34.3% | 28.8% |
Key Takeaways
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $3.75/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 59.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) reaches a 36.5 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
