Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Laguna XS.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.53/100
No comparison
Laguna XS.2
Poolside
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #14 (Estimated); Laguna XS.2 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 XS.2 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 1 to Laguna XS.2.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
35
Laguna XS.2 only
1
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Laguna XS.2 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 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 XS.2 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 $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Laguna XS.2. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Laguna XS.2.

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 XS.2
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔLaguna XS.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 39.4Laguna XS.235.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 17.8Laguna XS.260.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapLaguna XS.2Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapLaguna XS.2Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapLaguna XS.2Not 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 XS.2

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 35.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 33.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Laguna XS.2 scored 35.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 46.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 18
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Laguna XS.2 scored 46.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 69.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 17.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Laguna XS.2 scored 69.9%. 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)Laguna XS.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputLaguna XS.2$0 input / $0 outputLaguna XS.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableLaguna XS.2Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableLaguna XS.2Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MLaguna XS.2256KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%35.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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 49.7%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1493—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%69.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%46.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%35.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —57.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source 0.2%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 12.0%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
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 XS.2Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
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 1320—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Laguna XS.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Laguna XS.2?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Laguna XS.2 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 XS.2?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 60.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Laguna XS.2?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 35.7. 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 27, 2026

Know when it’s worth switching models

The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.