Claude Opus 4.6 vs MAI-Thinking-1
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Math
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.MAI-Thinking-1 is better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 12 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 4.62 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude Opus 4.62 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked02MAI-Thinking-12 of 2 tests
Reasoning and facts rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.6 pulls ahead
- Short factual questions, answered correctlySimpleQA Verified+16points ahead
- Harvard-MIT high-school math contest problemsHMMT Feb. 2026+11.3points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+7.3points ahead
Where MAI-Thinking-1 pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+15.9points ahead
- Keeps track of context across a multi-turn chatMulti-Challenge+15.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 12 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.6
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.380.873.5+7.3
- LiveCodeBench v6Claude Opus 4.6 by 1.188.887.7+1.1
- SWE-bench Protie53.452.8tie
MathClaude Opus 4.6
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 11.396.284.9+11.3
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 2.296.794.5+2.2
Following instructionsMAI-Thinking-1
- IFBenchMAI-Thinking-1 by 15.953.169+15.9
- Multi-ChallengeMAI-Thinking-1 by 15.837.153+15.8
Other results3 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.6 by 19.465.446+19.4
- MMLU-ProClaude Opus 4.6 by 4.189.185+4.1
- AIME 2025Claude Opus 4.6 by 2.899.897+2.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or MAI-Thinking-1?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts and math. MAI-Thinking-1 wins following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6. It wins 2 of the 3 coding tests both models report; MAI-Thinking-1 wins none, and 1 is a tie.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 12 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 9 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 3 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.