Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.23/100
Margin
15.5pts
← winning
50.76/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #6; Step 3.7 Flash unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) estimated; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Step 3.7 Flash share 22 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 8 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
16
Step 3.7 Flash only
8
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 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 provisional aggregate, 75 to 57. 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 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.4% to 59.5%.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 21.7x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.

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 Step 3.7 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔStep 3.7 Flash
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 22.3Step 3.7 Flash56.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 8.7Step 3.7 Flash66.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Step 3.7 Flash

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 59.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 56.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 75.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 3.5
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. 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)Step 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputStep 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MStep 3.7 Flash256KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%59.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%75.8%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%21.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%98.5%Step 3.7 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 50.0%25.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 15001017Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —92.8%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —49.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —67.1%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —47.2%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —51.57%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —14.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%56.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%59.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%39.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 51.5%35.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%40.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%63.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%2.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
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%30.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%80.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%19.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%-37.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%25.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%84.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%75.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281218Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SimpleVQASource —79.2%Not comparable
V*Source —95.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Step 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.4% and 59.5%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 66.4. 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.