Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.58/100
Margin
9.7pts
winning →
66.27/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (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 Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 35 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
2
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
35
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 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 3 shared benchmark results across 3 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 56.58. 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 73.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% 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 $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 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 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 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 scores and score margins for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3Margin→ 5.3Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6
AgenticClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1
ReasoningClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8
KnowledgeClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured
MultimodalClaude Haiku 4.5Not 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 Haiku 4.5B · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.3%B 87.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 14.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; 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.

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%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
τ²-bench resultsSource —88.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —49.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1495Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —18.2%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —46.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%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 Haiku 4.5Claude 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
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
GPQASource —94.2%Not comparable
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 Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%—Not comparable
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —43.8%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11521325Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-IFBenchSource —58.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 56.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 87.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 73.3. 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.