Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
o1
59
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · o1 unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Knowledge
+7.5 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
o1
$5 / $25
$15 / $60
N/A
98 t/s
N/A
32.29s
1M
200K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7. That is roughly 2.4x on output cost alone. o1 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 200K for o1.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.2% and 75.7%.
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 68.2. 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.