Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs o3-mini

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
18.9pts
← winning
o3-mini
OpenAI
47.41/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); o3-mini #136 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and o3-mini share 7 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 3 to o3-mini.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
7
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
31
o3-mini only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 3 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) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 47.41. 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 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 87.6% to 49.3%. o3-mini does hit back in knowledge, 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 $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for o3-mini. That is roughly 5.7x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o3-mini.

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 o3-mini
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δo3-mini
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 29.3o3-mini49.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 17.2o3-mini77.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapo3-miniNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapo3-mini93.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · o3-mini

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 49.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 38.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; o3-mini scored 49.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 77.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 17
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; o3-mini scored 77.2%. 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)o3-miniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputo3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 outputo3-mini has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableo3-mini160 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableo3-mini7.12 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1Mo3-mini200KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
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%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%28.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
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
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%49.3%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%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%39.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
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
Knowledgeo3-mini wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
GPQASource 94.2%77.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
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%19.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%74.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%8.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%—Not comparable
MMLUSource —86.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
AIME 2024Source —87.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)o3-miniResult
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)o3-miniResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
IFEvalSource —93.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or o3-mini?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 47.41. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 87.6% and 49.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or o3-mini?

o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 60. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or o3-mini?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 49.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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 23, 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.