Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Inkling share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 16 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 22
- Inkling only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Inkling is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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
Claude Opus 4.7 and Inkling finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 5.3x on output cost alone. Inkling 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.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Inkling?
Claude Opus 4.7 and Inkling are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.