Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; GPT-5.4 #10
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; GPT-5.4 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.4 share 20 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 34 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 2
- GPT-5.4 only
- 34
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 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-5.4 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 86 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 42.5 against 38.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.917% to 27.100%.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4. GPT-5.4 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. GPT-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.
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 | Δ | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin→ 3.9 | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.917%B 27.100%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; GPT-5.4 scored 27.100%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 43.793%B 47.600%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 3.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; GPT-5.4 scored 47.600%. GPT-5.4 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 | GPT-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | GPT-5.4 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | GPT-5.474 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | GPT-5.4151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 98.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 64.89% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | 15.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 75% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 54.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 60.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1395 | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | 67.42% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | 85.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | 57.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 56.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | 5.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 40.1% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 59.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 48.1% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 76.4% | 78.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | 1254 | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1672 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | 73.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 86 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 27.100%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 42.5 versus 38.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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.