The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiniCPM-SALA

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 30.2 to 12.7.

Anthropic · OpenBMB · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 30.2 to 12.7, ranking #108 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiniCPM-SALA wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 4.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 30.2 and ranks #108 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes

Choose MiniCPM-SALA

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.1
Anthropic
MiniCPM-SALA
OpenBMB
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
30.2
#108
12.7
#230
Reasoning
30.2
#104
14.2
#214
Coding
21.6
#76
21.1
#80
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$15.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$75.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.1
MiniCPM-SALA
Math
22.6#125
14.3#207
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

8 reported for Claude Opus 4.1 · 24 for MiniCPM-SALA

1 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while MiniCPM-SALA is better at 1 benchmark (AIME 2025).

MiniCPM-SALA significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies output context (32,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Input200,000 tokens
Output32,000 tokens
OpenBMB
MiniCPM-SALA
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 4.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiniCPM-SALA does not.

Claude Opus 4.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiniCPM-SALA

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiniCPM-SALA uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.1

Proprietary

Closed source

MiniCPM-SALA

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.1 was released on 2025-08-05, while MiniCPM-SALA was released on 2026-02-11.

MiniCPM-SALA is 6 months newer than Claude Opus 4.1.

Claude Opus 4.1

Aug 5, 2025

1.1 years ago

MiniCPM-SALA

Feb 11, 2026

6 months ago

6mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniCPM-SALA side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.1
✓ Preferred
MiniCPM-SALA
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiniCPM-SALA.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 30.2 to 12.7. Claude Opus 4.1 is made by Anthropic and MiniCPM-SALA is made by OpenBMB. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 4.1 compare to MiniCPM-SALA in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores MMMLU: 89.5%, TAU-bench Retail: 82.4%, GPQA: 80.9%, AIME 2025: 78.0%, MMMU (validation): 77.1%. MiniCPM-SALA scores HumanEval: 95.1%, RULER 64k: 92.7%, RULER 128k: 89.4%, MBPP: 89.1%, RULER 512K: 87.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 4.1 supports 200K tokens and MiniCPM-SALA supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (30.2 vs 12.7), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.1 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 4.1 is developed by Anthropic and MiniCPM-SALA is developed by OpenBMB.

Related comparisons