Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Updated November 12, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 66.43. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Anthropic

66.43/100

Estimated · Public rank #33

Conditional range 52.1–80.8

Model B
Anthropic logo
Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic

83.07/100

Supported · Public rank #6

90% interval 78.8–87.3

API price per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $5 input / $25 output

Claude Sonnet 5.5: $2 input / $10 output

Context window

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 1M

Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1M

Released

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): April 16, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5: September 28, 2026

Shared results
3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
18
Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
61
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) · Supported: Claude Sonnet 5.5. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 72.7 to 55.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

53.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)81.0Claude Sonnet 5.5

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

Or describe your own job

The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
55.7
Supported · #39/135
Claude Sonnet 5.5
72.7
Supported · #9/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 19 public rows
Reading
Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
53.9
Estimated · #38/162
Claude Sonnet 5.5
81.0
Supported · #4/162
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 12 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
62.4
Estimated · #35/67
Claude Sonnet 5.5
78.9
Estimated · #7/67
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
65.0
Estimated · #34/180
Claude Sonnet 5.5
82.1
Supported · #6/180
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 17 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Claude Sonnet 5.5
77.0
Supported · #6/160
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not ranked
Claude Sonnet 5.5
89.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.0175
Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.007
Fits in one request

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$0.325
Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.13
Fits in one request

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude Sonnet 5.5
$0.16
Fits in one request

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Your workload

Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
$100.00
per month
Claude Sonnet 5.5
$40.00
per month

Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not published

Claude Sonnet 5.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Reasoning

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

2026-04-16

Claude Sonnet 5.5

2026-09-28

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 66.43. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.16.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 66.43. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 81 to 53.9. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 72.7 to 55.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5.5; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.16. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence82 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.1

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.563.90%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turns
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.544.70%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.553.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.573.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.58%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1 Offline

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.583.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Binary Exploitation Benchmark

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.548
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.583.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 4.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.551.3 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.541.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench Frontier v4

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.592.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExtractBench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.532%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.594.68%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ParseBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.569.21%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (no tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.50.747
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.50.963
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Biomedical image analysis

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result

  • HealthBench (raw)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench (length-adjusted)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional (raw)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SpatialBench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SingleCellBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Morphology-to-molecule matching

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Medicinal chemistry

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Protein Design library ranking

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • De novo protein-binder design

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (troubleshooting)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Protocols (understanding)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PhysicianBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.563.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • GMMLU

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.592.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MILU

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.591.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.588.772%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Claude Sonnet 5.580.488%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

82 public results · 3 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 12, 2026