Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 75.1
- Hy3 Preview
- 54.4
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Hy3 Preview
Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.46 versus 42.8, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
16 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
5 Shared
1 Hy3 Preview only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 16
- Hy3 Preview only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 78.6
- Hy3 Preview
- 74.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 60.0
- Hy3 Preview
- 87.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 75.8
- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 65.1
- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not measured
- Hy3 Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Hy3 Preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 75.1 | 54.4 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 78.6 | 74.4 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 60.0 | 87.2 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 75.8 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 65.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 69.4%Hy3 Preview: 54.4%Normalized gap 15.0Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Hy3 Preview sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 87.6%Hy3 Preview: 74.4%Normalized gap 13.2Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Hy3 Preview sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 94.2%Hy3 Preview: 87.2%Normalized gap 7.0Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Hy3 Preview source
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
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
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
- Hy3 Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Hy3 Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Hy3 Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Hy3 Preview
256K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
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
Hy3 Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Hy3 Preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Hy3 Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Hy3 Preview
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Hy3 Preview
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
Hy3 Preview
2026-04-23
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.46 versus 42.8, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence22 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceHy3 Preview54.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Hy3 Preview36.91%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceHy3 Preview74.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceHy3 Preview54.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceHy3 Preview87.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceHy3 Preview87.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%SourceHy3 Preview—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score, 71.46 versus 42.8, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Hy3 Preview?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. 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 Hy3 Preview?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Hy3 Preview?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Hy3 Preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.