ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GPT-4.1 mini vs Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ 32B

GPT-4.1 mini comes out ahead, 60 to 53 and 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    60/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 mini

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.1

    Released Aug 5, 2025

    49/100
    • ECI144.1
    • Price$15.00 / $75.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.1

  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B
01 — Verdict

GPT-4.1 mini is our pick

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 · QwQ 32B 137.6 · GPT-4.1 mini 135.0
  • Lowest priceGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGPT-4.1 mini and Claude Opus 4.1GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT-4.1 miniClaude Opus 4.1QwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%597162
Price25%57056
Inputs & features15%707035
Context window10%613224
Overall100%60/10049/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GPT-4.1 mini vs Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT-4.1 miniOpenAIClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)135.0144.1 (best)137.6
ECI rank#115 of 148#81 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.9%77.3% (best)65.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics6.7%12.6% (best)—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics44.7%68.9% (best)59.2%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—73.4%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions12.7%——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$15.00$0.66
Output$1.60$75.00$1.00 (best)
Cached input$0.10——
Blended (3:1)$0.70 (best)$30.00$0.745
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 14 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window1,047,576 tokens (best)200,000 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens (best)32,000 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryOpen
API model IDgpt-4.1-mini——
API providers24 (best)141
ReleasedApr 14, 2025Aug 5, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Mar 31, 2025Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
  • Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT-4.1 mini, Claude Opus 4.1 or QwQ 32B?

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 mini, Claude Opus 4.1 or QwQ 32B?

GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). QwQ 32B costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.70 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 mini versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.1× as much) and $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (43× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148), QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148) and GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.6–146.0 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4.1 77.3%, GPT-4.1 mini 65.9%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%, QwQ 32B 59.2%, GPT-4.1 mini 44.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-4.1 mini and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 4.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 mini has the largest context window at 1,047,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.1 and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768, Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; QwQ 32B accepts text. GPT-4.1 mini handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-4.1 mini and Claude Opus 4.1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. GPT-4.1 mini came out Apr 14, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-4.1 mini Apr 2024, Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, QwQ 32B Apr 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons