Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #14 (Estimated); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Opus 5 share 24 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 55 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 15
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 5 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 71.63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 75.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OfficeQA Pro, 43.6% to 66.9%.
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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin→ 15.7 | Claude Opus 590.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | Margin→ 14.6 | Claude Opus 590.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | Margin→ 10.9 | Claude Opus 589.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin→ 4.7 | Claude Opus 564.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | Margin→ 1.8 | Claude Opus 566.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OfficeQA Pro
MultimodalA 43.6%B 66.9%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 23.3OfficeQA Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 43.6%; Claude Opus 5 scored 66.9%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.3%B 79.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 14.9SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 75.8%B 90.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 14.6ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Claude Opus 5 scored 90.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 79.3%B 90.8%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 11.5BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 54.7%B 64.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 10HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins30 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | 90.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | 85.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | 55.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.7% | 68.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1493 | 1861 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | 70.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | — | 43.3% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 23.58% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 93.74% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 11.7% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | — | 23.5 turns | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 26.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1720 | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | 96% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | 79.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | 78.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | 55.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 59.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 63.6% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 93.0% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 70.0% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRCR v2 128K-256KSource | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 75.8% | 90.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| ARC-AGI-3Source | 0.2% | 30.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-LCRSource | 70.3% | 70.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CritPtSource | 12.0% | 29.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| ARC-AGI-1Source | — | 97.50% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | 64.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | 56.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 93.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 52.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | 31.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 54.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 50.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | — | 72.5% | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
| IMO 2026Source | — | 42/42 | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | — | 60.0% | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | — | 91.3% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 43.6% | 66.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CharXivSource | 91% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.8% | 84.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (no tools)Source | — | 29.6% | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | — | 0.366 | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | — | 0.821 | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 71.63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 43.6% and 66.9%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 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 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 78.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 75.8. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-3 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.9 versus 65.1. Inside this category, OfficeQA Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.