Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
2.3pts
← winning
66.27/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (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 Opus 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 14 to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
24
Claude Opus 4.6 only
22
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
14
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 68.59 versus 66.27. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77.3 against 65.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 53.4% to 64.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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.

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 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3Margin← 12.2Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 10.5Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 9.1Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin→ 2.1Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 64.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 87.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 72.7%B 78%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 5.3
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 72.7%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 79.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 4.4
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 69.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%. 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 Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%69.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%79.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%78%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%88.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%73.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%45.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MCP AtlasSource —77.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —44.4%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 Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%87.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%64.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%54.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —73.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%70.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 2.8%12.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —59.2%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —75.8%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
GPQASource 91.3%94.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%94.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%54.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%46.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%53.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%91.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%39.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%26.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%45.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%36.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —43.8%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%78.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251325Tie
OfficeQA ProSource —43.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource —91%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —82.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%58.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 53.4% and 64.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 73. Inside this category, JobBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.3 versus 65.1. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.