Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
vs. MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic, OpenBMB
Recommended Pick
An Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
52.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
42.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) leads MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B by 36.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) leads MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B by 42.2 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B
OpenBMB
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Op MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $5.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.00/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenBMB |
| Release Date | Nov 24, 2025 | May 11, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 53.4 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1427ms | — |
| Latency | 1427ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 52.5 | 16.0 |
| Intelligence | 43.1 | 12.7 |
| Coding | 42.9 | 0.7 |
| Math | 62.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 81.0% | 30.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 88.9% | — |
| HLE | 12.9% | 4.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 73.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 62.7% | — |
| SciCode | 47.0% | 2.1% |
| LCR | 65.3% | 6.3% |
| IFBench | 43.0% | 26.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 86.3% | 87.7% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 40.9% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 52.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) reaches a 42.9 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 Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
MiniCPM-V 4.6 1.3B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
