Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
GPT-4.1 nano
28
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · GPT-4.1 nano unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Knowledge
+17.9 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
GPT-4.1 nano
$5 / $25
$0.1 / $0.4
N/A
181 t/s
N/A
0.63s
1M
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 28. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 68.2 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 94.2% to 50.3%.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4.1 nano. That is roughly 62.5x on output cost alone.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 28. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.2% and 50.3%.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.2 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.