Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.74/100
Margin
18.5pts
winning →
66.27/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 36 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
2
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
36
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78.6 against 49. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49% to 87.6%.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CategoryClaude 3.5 SonnetΔClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CodingClaude 3.5 Sonnet49.0Margin→ 29.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet59.4Margin→ 0.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0
AgenticClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1
ReasoningClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8
MathClaude 3.5 Sonnet1.6MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured
MultimodalClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 3.5 SonnetB · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 87.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 38.6
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 59.4%B 94.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 34.8
    GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude 3.5 Sonnet has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.4%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —79.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —77.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —78%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —73.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —44.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —88.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —49.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1495Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —18.2%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —45.9%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —46.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%87.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource —64.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —73.6%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —54.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —59.2%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —75.8%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —70.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —12.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
GPQASource 59.4%94.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource —94.2%Not comparable
HLESource —54.7%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —46.9%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —91.4%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —39.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —26.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —45.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —36.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%—Not comparable
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —43.8%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
OfficeQA ProSource —43.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource —91%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —82.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —78.8%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1325Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-IFBenchSource —58.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49% and 87.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.