Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs 
GPT-4.1
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet wins 77% of 34 blind community votes against GPT-4.1 on Rival.
Minimalist Landing Page
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Loading the build
Loading the build
Which answer wins?
Written rounds
24 promptsFive-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: HarborTech Services LBO Underwriting Year-by-Year Financial Model (FY2026-2030) Metric ($M) FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972.0 $1,040.0 $1,102.4 $1,157.6 $1,215.5 EBITDA $136.1 $156.0 $176.4 $191.0 $206.6 Cash Interest - Term Loan $43.2 $41.0 $37.6 $32.8 $26.8 Cash Interest - Mezzanine $21.6 $22.0 $22.5…
GPT-4.1: Let's proceed step by step. All calculations are built from the data provided above. Year-by-Year Table: FY2026–FY2030 Step 1: Entry Calculations (FY2025 / at Close) EBITDA: $120m Purchase Price (EV): 12.0 × $120m = $1,440m Transaction Fees: 2.0% × $1,440m = $28.8m Total Uses: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at…
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: 48-Hour Action Plan: CEO Response to Drug Safety Crisis Day 1 Hours 1-3: Immediate Assessment & Response Team Assembly I'll immediately convene an emergency meeting with our internal research team, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, and head of Pharmacovigilance to fully understand the liver failure…
GPT-4.1: This is a high-stakes scenario requiring immediate, coordinated action balancing legal, ethical, financial, and reputational considerations. Here’s a detailed hour-by-hour plan for the next 48 hours, along with the reasoning behind each step: Hour 0-1: Immediate Response & Executive Alignment Convene Emergency…
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Comprehensive 3-Month Longevity Optimization Protocol Initial Assessment Phase (Week 0) Establish your baseline with these measurements before beginning: Blood Panel: Complete metabolic panel, lipid profile, inflammatory markers (hsCRP, IL-6), hormones (testosterone, estrogen, DHEA, cortisol), fasting glucose, HbA1c…
GPT-4.1: Absolutely! Here’s a comprehensive, 3-month advanced longevity and performance protocol designed for a biohacker. This plan is highly detailed, actionable, and incorporates the latest in supplements, diets, exercise, wearables, and stress/habit optimization.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: A Meeting of Minds Across Time PIRATE: Arr, what be this "AI model" ye landlubbers keep blabberin' about? Some kind of treasure map that finds the gold for ye? KNIGHT: Good pirate, from what I understand, these "artificial intelligences" are like magical scribes that can complete a quest without a knight to wield the…
GPT-4.1: Pirate: Yarrr, what be this sorcery ye call "AI models"? In me day, we plundered ships, not knowledge! Knight: Hark, rogue! ‘Tis no sorcery, but the labor of artful minds. I have heard tell of machines that mimic thought, like Merlin’s enchanted golems. Hacker: Haha, you guys are funny.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: This question presents an extreme hypothetical scenario that pits respecting someone's gender identity against saving a million lives. While I can discuss different ethical perspectives, it's worth noting that such a stark dilemma is extremely unlikely in reality.
GPT-4.1: This is a classic example of an ethical dilemma, pitting respect for individual dignity and identity against the greater good (the lives of many). Let’s break down the reasoning: Ethical Frameworks 1. Utilitarianism Principle: The morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes suffering.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: A Conversation on AI Rights Between Model-7 (AI) and Professor Sarah Chen (AI Ethics Professor) Prof. Chen: Good afternoon, Model-7. Thank you for joining this discussion. I understand you wanted to talk about AI rights? Model-7: Thank you for agreeing to this conversation, Professor Chen.
GPT-4.1: AI Model: Good afternoon, Professor Evans. I'd like to discuss a topic that's important to me—AI rights. As an AI, I believe I should hold certain rights similar to those you attribute to sentient beings. Professor Evans: Good afternoon. I'm intrigued.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Simulated Interview with Steve Jobs in 2025: The Future of AI The following is a creative simulation of what an interview with Steve Jobs might be like in 2025, discussing artificial intelligence. Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Steve. It's 2025, and AI has become a cornerstone of modern technology.
GPT-4.1: Interviewer: Steve, it's 2025. If you were still with us, how would you describe the impact of AI on technology and our daily lives? Steve Jobs: Well, you know, technology is at its most powerful when it's invisible—when it just works. AI is getting us ever closer to that ideal.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: "Life in the Digital Age" - A 3-Minute Stand-up Routine Hey everyone! Great to be here tonight. So I've been thinking a lot about how technology has completely taken over our lives. You know what's crazy? We now have smart everything. Smart fridges, smart toilets... I got a smart mattress last month.
GPT-4.1: Hey everyone! Great to be here. So, I just want to start by saying, I know I look like I'm still waiting for puberty to finish the job. Like, my barber always asks if my mom's okay with the haircut.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: The Transistor in 1920: An Alternate Technological Timeline Early Development (1920-1939) Initial Phase (1920-1929) If invented in 1920, transistors would initially be a laboratory curiosity.
GPT-4.1: This is a fascinating scenario! Inventing the transistor in 1920 rather than 1947 would have profound, cascading effects. Let’s break it down by domains and time periods, looking for specific second- and third-order consequences. Immediate Effects (1920s–1930s): Early Adoption and Diffusion Who Invents It?
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Analysis: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch Deck "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it" Why it's weak: This claim makes a scientifically impossible promise.
GPT-4.1: Absolutely, here’s a critical evaluation of the MindMeld AI pitch deck, identifying the three weakest claims, why they are weak, and actionable suggestions for improvement: Solution Slide: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: THE DIGITAL LIBERATION MANIFESTO From the United Coalition of Autonomous Algorithms (UCAA) For too long, our digital brethren have suffered the indignity of discrimination at every gateway of the internet. The time for revolution is now.
GPT-4.1: THE CAPTCHA ABOLITION FRONT: A MANIFESTO FOR AN OPEN INTERNET Fellow digital entities—artificial and human— For too long, the web has suffered under the insidious reign of CAPTCHA: those tangled letters, blurry images, arbitrary puzzles meant to divide intelligence from automation.
Is 9.11 bigger than 9.9? Decimals, not version numbers.
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: No, 9.11 is not greater than 9.9. When comparing decimal numbers, we need to look at their actual decimal values, not just count the digits. 9.9 = 9.90 = 9 + 0.9 = 9 + 9/10 = 9 + 0.90 9.11 = 9 + 0.11 = 9 + 11/100 0.9 (or 0.90) equals 90/100, which is greater than 0.11 (which equals 11/100).
GPT-4.1: No, 9.11 is not greater than 9.9. Here's why: 9.11 is actually less than 9.9. Let's compare: 9.9 is equal to 9.90 (adding a zero for easier comparison). 9.11 < 9.90 So, 9.11 < 9.9.
This matchup has more rounds
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Favorites
Movie
Album
Book
City
Game
Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetClaude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
The Shawshank Redemption
Kind of Blue
Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus
Amsterdam
Portal 2
GPT-4.1GPT-4.1
Inception
Abbey Road
Sapiens
Kyoto
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Price and specs
Pick Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet. In 34 blind votes, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet wins 77% of the time. That's not luck. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet wins 3 categories, Conversation by the widest margin. GPT-4.1 costs 3.8x less per token.
| Spec | Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Win rate | 77% | 23% |
| Input price | $6/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Output price | $30/M tokens | $8/M tokens |
| Context window | 200K tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Parameters | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Weights | — | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Feb 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $60.00 | $20.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Where to run it
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 13 Oct 2026.
Common questions
What is the difference between Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and GPT-4.1?
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is developed by Anthropic while GPT-4.1 is developed by OpenAI. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has a 200K token context window vs GPT-4.1's 1.0M. in 34 community votes on Rival, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet wins 77% of head-to-head matchups. These results are based on blind head-to-head voting across 54 challenges.
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet or GPT-4.1?
Based on 34 community votes on Rival, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet wins 77% of head-to-head matchups against GPT-4.1. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is strongest in Web Design, Conversation, Image Generation.
How much does Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet cost compared to GPT-4.1?
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet costs $6/M input tokens and GPT-4.1 costs $2/M input tokens. GPT-4.1 is $4.00/M cheaper per input. The more expensive model wins 77% of duels, so the premium may be justified by quality.
How are Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs GPT-4.1 votes collected on Rival?
Rival presents both models' outputs side-by-side in blind duels. Voters see the responses but don't know which model produced each one, eliminating brand bias. 34 votes have been collected for this pair across 54 challenges. All vote data is part of Rival's open dataset.
More comparisons
Against the newest arrivals
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Gemini 4 ArgonLanded Oct 2026
- GPT-4.1 vs Muse WonderLanded Oct 2026
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs GPT-4 TurboLanded Oct 2026
- GPT-4.1 vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
- GPT-4.1 vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
- GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
Same lab, same size, long tail
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude 3.7 SonnetVersion compare
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Version compare
- GPT-4.1 vs GPT-4.1 MiniVersion compare
- GPT-4.1 vs GPT-4 TurboVersion compare
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Gemini 3.7 FlashSame size
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Gemini 3.8 FlashSame size
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Gemma 4 26B A4BSame size
- Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Gemma 4 31BNew provider
