Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
90
GPT-5.4 nano
61
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #5 · GPT-5.4 nano unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+32.0 difference
Knowledge
+15.0 difference
Multimodal
+1.8 difference
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
GPT-5.4 nano
$5 / $25
$0.2 / $1.25
N/A
191 t/s
N/A
3.64s
1M
400K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 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 agentic, where it averages 74.9 against 42.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 78% to 39%. GPT-5.4 nano 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 $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 20.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 90 to 61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 78% and 39%.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.2 versus 53.2. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.9 versus 42.9. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.4 nano has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.1 versus 64.3. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.