Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Sonnet 4.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
12.7pts
← winning
53.61/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Sonnet 4.5 share 7 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 5 to Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
7
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
31
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
5
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 5 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 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 53.61. 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 reasoning, where it averages 75.8 against 13.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 75.8% to 13.6%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 4.5. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Sonnet 4.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔClaude Sonnet 4.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin← 62.2Claude Sonnet 4.513.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 23.4Claude Sonnet 4.583.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 19.7Claude Sonnet 4.555.4
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 1.4Claude Sonnet 4.577.2
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Sonnet 4.511.2
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Claude Sonnet 4.5

  1. ARC-AGI-2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 75.8%B 13.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 62.2
    ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 50%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 19.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 61.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 16.6
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 61.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 83.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.8
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 77.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%. 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 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputClaude Sonnet 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Sonnet 4.5200KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%50%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%61.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
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 1495—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%27.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —17.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —48.51%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%77.2%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
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%13.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-LCRSource 70.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 12.0%—Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
GPQASource 94.2%83.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
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 Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —87%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —13.495%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —4.167%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
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
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251219Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 75.8% and 13.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 60. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 77.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 13.6. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.