Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (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 4 Sonnet and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 23 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 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 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 42.79. 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 72.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 72.7% 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 4 Sonnet. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 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 4 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 | Claude 4 Sonnet | Δ | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin→ 5.9 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 |
| Agentic | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 72.7%B 87.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 14.9SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%. 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.
| Metric | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Claude 4 Sonnet has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.3% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.66% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 18.4% | 45.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| 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 |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 49.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1495 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 46.7% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins5 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 72.7% | 87.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.3% | 54.5% | 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 |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 91.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | 39.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | 26.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | 45.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | 36.2% | 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 |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | — | 43.8% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 45.4% | 58.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 42.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 87.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 72.7. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.