Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Exaone 4.0 32B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 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) #27 (Estimated); Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Exaone 4.0 32B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 2 to Exaone 4.0 32B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 27
- Exaone 4.0 32B only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
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 | Exaone 4.0 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin→ 21.8 | Exaone 4.0 32B81.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Exaone 4.0 32B128K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | 4.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 6.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 62.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 4.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | -62.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 10.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 81.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | 33.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Exaone 4.0 32B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 40.44.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Exaone 4.0 32B?
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.