Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.23/100
Margin
2.8pts
winning →
Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #6; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Inkling share 12 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 4 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
26
Inkling only
4
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling 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 12 shared benchmark results across 4 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) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 69. 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 coding, where it averages 78.6 against 68.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 87.6% to 77.6%. Inkling 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 $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 5.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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.

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 Inkling
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔInkling
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 11.4Inkling76.5
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 10.0Inkling68.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 8.3Inkling51.7
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 5.7Inkling69.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapInklingNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling97.1
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Inkling

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 77.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 54.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Inkling scored 54.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 82%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Inkling scored 82%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 46%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8.7
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Inkling scored 46%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 87.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.3
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Inkling scored 87.9%. 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)InklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputInkling has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MInkling1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%63.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%77.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%74.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 50.0%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1500—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource —1258Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%77.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%54.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%63.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 51.5%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 12.0%—Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
GPQASource 94.2%87.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%87.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%46%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%30%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 39.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —97.1%Not comparable
MultimodalInkling wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%82%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%78.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1328—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 87.6% and 77.6%.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 68.6. 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 Inkling?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 69.4. 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 Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 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 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.