Model comparison
Claude 3 Opus vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3 Opus #168 (Supported); 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 Opus and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 5 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 3 Opus; 33 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Claude 3 Opus only
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 33
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 3 Opus and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude 3 Opus is priced at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive). Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3 Opus.
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 | Claude 3 Opus | Δ | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 3 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 |
| Coding | Claude 3 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 |
| Reasoning | Claude 3 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude 3 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 |
| Multimodal | Claude 3 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3 Opus | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3 OpusNot available | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3 OpusNot available | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3 Opus200K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Claude 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 | — | 1495 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 45.9% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 46.7% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 19.5% | 73.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 23.3% | 54.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 11.8% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 48.9% | 91.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.1% | 39.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GPQASource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 54.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 26.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 45.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | — | 43.8% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 3 Opus and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 3 Opus and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) today?
Claude 3 Opus: $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.