Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Nemotron 3 Ultra

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.23/100
Margin
6.2pts
← winning
60/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #6; Nemotron 3 Ultra #24

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) estimated; Nemotron 3 Ultra not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Nemotron 3 Ultra share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 14 to Nemotron 3 Ultra.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
25
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
13
Nemotron 3 Ultra only
14
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Ultra only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 6 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 60. 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 agentic, where it averages 75.1 against 51.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 79.3% to 44.4%.

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 Nemotron 3 Ultra. That is roughly Infinityx 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 Nemotron 3 Ultra
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔNemotron 3 Ultra
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 23.8Nemotron 3 Ultra51.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 20.3Nemotron 3 Ultra58.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin← 13.9Nemotron 3 Ultra61.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 5.8Nemotron 3 Ultra54.2
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra83.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapNemotron 3 UltraNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapNemotron 3 Ultra81.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Nemotron 3 Ultra

  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 44.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 34.9
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 44.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 26.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 28
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 26.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 71.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 15.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 71.9%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 56.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 13
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 56.4%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 87%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.2
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 87%. 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)Nemotron 3 UltraComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputNemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 outputNemotron 3 Ultra has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableNemotron 3 UltraNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MNemotron 3 Ultra1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%56.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%44.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%27.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%83.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 50.0%33.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 15001164Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
PinchBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —70.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —37.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —870Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —28.9%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —3.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%71.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%56.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%49.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 51.5%36.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%39.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE MultilingualSource —67.7%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —89.0%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —44.6%Not comparable
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%67.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%3.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
LongBench v2Source —61.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
GPQASource 94.2%87%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%87.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%26.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%26.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%37.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%86.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%26.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%-0.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%21.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%28.5%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
MMLU-ProSource —86.8%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —83.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
MMLU-ProXSource —83%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
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 13281132Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Nemotron 3 UltraResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%81.4%Nemotron 3 Ultra leads
IFBenchSource —81.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 79.3% and 44.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 54.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 58.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 61.9. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Nemotron 3 Ultra?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 51.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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 16, 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.