Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
1.2pts
← winning
65.07/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 11 to Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
16
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
11
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.6 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 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 4.7 (Adaptive) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 66.27 versus 65.07. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 75.1 against 65.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 91% to 77.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, 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 4.6. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

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 4.6
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔClaude Sonnet 4.6
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 12.3Claude Sonnet 4.677.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 9.9Claude Sonnet 4.665.2
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 9.5Claude Sonnet 4.669.1
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 6.0Claude Sonnet 4.666.0
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Sonnet 4.626.4

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 4.6

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 77.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 13.6
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 59.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 79.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 72.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 5.9
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 72.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 49%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 5.7
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%. 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 4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputClaude Sonnet 4.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Sonnet 4.6200KClaude 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 4.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%59.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%72.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%65.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%79.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1495—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%8.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
JobBenchSource 45.9%36.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —67.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —62.92%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%79.6%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%46.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-RebenchSource —60.7%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —80.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —51.48%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —48.8%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —24.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%57.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%0.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
GPQASource 94.2%89.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%49%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%35.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%79.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%13.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%-2.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%38.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%65.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SuperGPQASource —95%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —79.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —32.400%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —8.300%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%77.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%70.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251314Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%41.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 65.07. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 77.4%.

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

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 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 Sonnet 4.6?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 69.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 65.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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 Sonnet 4.6?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 65.1. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.