Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Laguna S 2.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Laguna S 2.1 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 3 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
35
Laguna S 2.1 only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if coding is the priority; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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) and Laguna S 2.1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 125.0x on output cost alone.

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 Laguna S 2.1
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔLaguna S 2.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 19.2Laguna S 2.159.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 4.9Laguna S 2.170.2
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Laguna S 2.1

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 59.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 4.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 70.2%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 0.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Laguna S 2.1 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)Laguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MLaguna S 2.11MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%70.2%Laguna S 2.1 leads
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%—Not comparable
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
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%59.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%70.2%Laguna S 2.1 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.5%Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
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
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
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%—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)Laguna S 2.1Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna S 2.1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Laguna S 2.1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 70.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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 21, 2026

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.