Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Haiku 4.5 estimated; Claude Opus 4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 19 to Claude Opus 4.7.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 38.6 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 5.903% to 43.793%.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
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 Haiku 4.5 | Δ | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 33.7 | Claude Opus 4.738.6 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 5.903%B 43.793%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 37.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.083%B 22.917%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 20.8FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 2.083%; Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Claude Opus 4.71M | Claude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 71.00% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 51.9% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 43.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 43.793%.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 4.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.