Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.63/100
Margin
13.3pts
← winning
GPT-5.2
OpenAI
58.36/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; GPT-5.2 #23

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; GPT-5.2 estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.2 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 12 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.7 only
5
GPT-5.2 only
12
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 75 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.2. GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2.

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 and GPT-5.2
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGPT-5.2
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin← 3.4GPT-5.235.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.255.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.270.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.252.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.292.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.280.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · GPT-5.2

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 18.800%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 4.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; GPT-5.2 scored 18.800%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 40.700%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 3.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; GPT-5.2 scored 40.700%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputGPT-5.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.273 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.2130.34 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGPT-5.2400KClaude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%84.8%GPT-5.2 leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%46.54%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —65.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —47.3%Not comparable
JobBenchSource —34.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%53.50%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 54.5%47.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%52.1%GPT-5.2 leads
FrontierCodeSource 38.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —80%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
AA-LCRSource 67.0%72.7%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 5.1%11.6%GPT-5.2 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —52.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%42.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%90.3%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%35.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%-1.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%43.8%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%79.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
GPQASource —92.4%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%40.700%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%18.800%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA AIME 2025Source —99.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281229Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MMMU-ProSource —79.5%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource —82.1%Not comparable
V*Source —75.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%75.4%GPT-5.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 75 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 18.800%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.2?

Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 35.2. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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 15, 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.