Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 4.7 vs o3
Updated October 13, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public point estimate, 65.18 versus 45.41. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 14
- o3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 4.7 · Supported: o3. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
o3
o3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
o3
o3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
O3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
O3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. o3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
55.6Claude Opus 4.7—o3
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 Claude Opus 4.7 only
1 Shared
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 36.8Claude Opus 4.7:70.175%o3:33.333%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7
- 65.3
- Estimated · #30/181
- o3
- 48.5
- Estimated · #86/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- 54.0
- Supported · #40/124
- o3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- 55.6
- Supported · #30/149
- o3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- o3
- 77.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- o3
- 67.8
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- o3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- o3
- 87.4
- #37/128
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- 72.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- o3
- 48.5
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | o3 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 65.3Estimated · #30/181 | 48.5Estimated · #86/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 54.0Supported · #40/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 55.6Supported · #30/149 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 77.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 67.8Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 87.4#37/128 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 72.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 48.5Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- o3
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
o3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- o3
- $0.124
- Fits in one request
o3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- o3
- $0.52
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7o3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7
o3
200K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7
claude-opus-4-7
Anthropic model ID documentationo3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7
Not published
o3
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7
text, image
Anthropic model overviewo3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7
o3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewo3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7
Non-Reasoning
o3
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
o3
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
o3
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7
2026-04-16
o3
2025-04-16
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public point estimate, 65.18 versus 45.41. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.124. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.52.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or o3?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public point estimate, 65.18 versus 45.41. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 or o3?
O3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 or o3?
O3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 or o3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 and $0.006 on o3; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.124; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.52. o3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. o3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or o3?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence15 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.765.59%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.720.7%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.713.9%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.768.5%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Opus 4.77%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
Coding
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.771.00%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Opus 4.782.8%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.738.5%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.785.1%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.782.0%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Opus 4.728.6%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.770.175%o333.333%Claude Opus 4.7 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.731.707%Sourceo3—Not directly comparable
15 public results · 1 shared
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 vs o3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 13, 2026