Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.13/100
Margin
7.5pts
winning →
71.63/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #19; Claude Opus 4.7 unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.5 supported; Claude Opus 4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 43 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 5 to Claude Opus 4.7.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.5 only
43
Claude Opus 4.7 only
5
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 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 4.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 71 versus 69. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 57.5 against 38.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 20.690% to 43.793%.

Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 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 Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔClaude Opus 4.7
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin← 18.9Claude Opus 4.738.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.5MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Claude Opus 4.7

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 20.690%B 43.793%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 23.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 22.917%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 18.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 4.167%; 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.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sClaude Opus 4.7Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sClaude Opus 4.7Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KClaude Opus 4.71MClaude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%74%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%65.59%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —20.7%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —13.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 40.9%54.5%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%50.1%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource —71.00%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —82.8%Not comparable
FrontierCodeSource —38.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%67.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%5.1%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%42.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%88.5%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%31.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%14.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%43.5%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%51.9%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%43.793%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%22.917%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%76.4%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12811328Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.7Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%43.6%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 20.690% and 43.793%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 38.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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 15, 2026

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.