Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.1-Codex

GPT-5.1-Codex leads Claude Opus 4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 23.7 to 22.8, and GPT-5.1-Codex costs 7.5x less per output token ($10.00 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
5
GPT-5.1-CodexOpenAI
Coding
15.3
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
5
vs boards won of 10 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.1-Codex: which to pick

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by LMArena WebDev or LMArena WebDev: HTML, where it leads.

Shared results
10
Claude Opus 4.1 only
63
GPT-5.1-Codex only
16
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, GPT-5.1-Codex 15.3 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 13.8 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Terminal-Bench: Claude Opus 4.1 38.0% against GPT-5.1-Codex 57.8%, 19.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 per million output tokens, 7.5x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex 400K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsGPT-5.1-CodexTies
Coding22
Intelligence01
Web design32
All shared boards55
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index22
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured66.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev13901337Claude Opus 4.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%85.5%GPT-5.1-Codex
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured13.1%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.9%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%57.8%GPT-5.1-Codex
WeirdML45.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1244.9Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena Text: coding1479Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1456Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13991346Claude Opus 4.1
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.823.7GPT-5.1-Codex
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1018Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1191Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured83.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
GPQA Diamond76.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.7%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1442Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1438Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1451Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured95.7Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured95.7%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1431Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1434Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
MMLU Pro87.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena Text: science1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1416Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1421Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1406Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Design Arena: websites11761161Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: UI components11621234GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: game dev11711137Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: data viz11661213GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: 3D1152Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories11701152Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: SVG1152Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1167Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
IFBenchNot measured70.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured69.3%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
DTBench80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMCA37.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text1419Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1435Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1405Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1427Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1377Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1381Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1448Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1444Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1455Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1418Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1398Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.0063Fits in one request

GPT-5.1-Codex costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.092Fits in one request

GPT-5.1-Codex costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.350Fits in one request

GPT-5.1-Codex costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1OpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex
MakerAnthropicOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025November 13, 2025
Context window200K400K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$1.25
Output $/Mtok$75.00$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked15.3
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.892
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5.1-Codex for coding?

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by LMArena WebDev or LMArena WebDev: HTML, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.1-Codex?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.1-Codex?

GPT-5.1-Codex, with 400K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.1-Codex comparison based on?

10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.1-Codex's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next