Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.53/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #14 (Estimated); Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 8 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.

Updated July 27, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
22
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
8
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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 $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B. That is roughly 3.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.

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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔMistral Medium 3.5 128B
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1MarginNo overlapMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

  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%; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%. 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)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputMistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 outputMistral Medium 3.5 128B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MMistral Medium 3.5 128B256KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%—Not comparable
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%19.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%94.2%Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads
GDPval-AASource 49.7%21.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 1493933Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —91.4%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.10%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —33.7%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —69.1%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —33.3%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —516Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —14.4%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%77.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%46.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%39.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
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%61.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%0.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
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%29.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%74.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%12.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%-36.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%25.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%82.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Openness IndexSource —33.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%64.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1320—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Mistral Medium 3.5 128BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%68.8%Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 77.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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.