Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Soofi S 30B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #6; Soofi S 30B-A3B unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Soofi S 30B-A3B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 6 to Soofi S 30B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 36
- Soofi S 30B-A3B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Soofi S 30B-A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 45. 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 knowledge, where it averages 60 against 49.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 94.2% to 43.4%.
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 Soofi S 30B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Soofi S 30B-A3B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Soofi S 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin← 10.1 | Soofi S 30B-A3B49.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.0 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 94.2%B 43.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 50.8GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Soofi S 30B-A3B scored 43.4%. 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.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Soofi S 30B-A3B1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1500 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 51.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning6 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | 43.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | 43.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| 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 |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.2% and 43.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 49.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.