Claude 4.1 Opus vs o3
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | o3 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Index | 30.0 | 31.0 | -3.2% |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 256K tokens | — |
| Blended price ($/1M tokens) | $1.68 | $0.90 | +86.7% |
| Output speed (tokens/s) | 30 | 115 | -73.9% |
| Access | Proprietary API | Proprietary API | — |
- o3 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 31.0 vs 30.0).
- o3 is the cheaper model to run at $0.90/1M blended tokens — about 1.9× cheaper.
- Claude 4.1 Opus offers the larger context window (262K tokens), useful for long documents and codebases.
Verdict: Claude 4.1 Opus or o3?
Claude 4.1 Opus advantages
- No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.
o3 advantages
- Affordability (+46%)
- Output speed (+74%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the o3 if you want the lowest cost per token at scale.
Value for money
o3 offers more intelligence per dollar (1.9× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use.
Claude 4.1 Opus vs o3: which should you choose?
Claude 4.1 Opus — Anthropic multimodal model with an Intelligence Index of 30, a 262K-token context window and a blended price of $1.68/1M tokens.
o3 — OpenAI multimodal model with an Intelligence Index of 31, a 256K-token context window and a blended price of $0.9/1M tokens.
Claude 4.1 Opus vs o3: o3 scores higher on the Intelligence Index. o3 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 31.0 vs 30.0). o3 is the cheaper model to run at $0.90/1M blended tokens — about 1.9× cheaper.
Capability: intelligence, coding and agentic work
On the composite Intelligence Index the o3 scores 31.0 versus 30.0. Composite indices summarize many evaluations, but always test on your own workload before committing.
Context window and speed
The Claude 4.1 Opus accepts up to 262K tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once. In measured throughput, o3 generates faster (115 vs 30 tokens/s), which matters for interactive apps and high-volume pipelines.
Pricing and access
At blended per-token rates, o3 is the cheaper model to run ($0.90 vs $1.68 per 1M tokens). Claude 4.1 Opus is proprietary api and o3 is proprietary api. Open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage; for production also weigh rate limits, throughput and data-residency requirements.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Claude 4.1 Opus better than the o3?
o3 is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. o3 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 31.0 vs 30.0).
What is the main difference between the Claude 4.1 Opus and the o3?
o3 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 31.0 vs 30.0). o3 is the cheaper model to run at $0.90/1M blended tokens — about 1.9× cheaper.
Which is better value?
o3 offers more intelligence per dollar (1.9× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use.
Which should I choose?
Choose the o3 if you want the lowest cost per token at scale.
Methodology
Large language models are compared on independent leaderboard metrics: an Intelligence Index (a composite of reasoning and knowledge evaluations), Coding and Agentic indices where measured, community arena Elo, maximum context window, a blended API price per million tokens (weighted across cache-hit, input and output rates), and measured output speed in tokens per second. Where a model ships multiple reasoning-effort variants, we report its strongest variant. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit — and this space moves quickly, so figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.