Skip to main content

Model profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

AnthropicSupersededReleased Apr 16, 2026
Data verified
Superseded:Anthropic has released newer models in this line —Claude Opus 4.8
Overall Score
66.27Public #27 of 200
Arena Elo
1502
Eligible category ranks
4of 8
Price (1M tokens)
$5 in / $25 out
API pricing
Speed
Not listed
Context
1M

Evidence coverage

38 of 323 tracked benchmarks are published. 15 are verified and 23 provisional. 7 of 8 categories are measured.

Updated July 23, 2026Methodology
Published / tracked
38 / 323
Verified
15
Provisional
23
Categories with evidence
7 / 8

Evidence by category

  • Agentic12 benchmarks
    Mixed evidence
  • Coding5 benchmarks
    Mixed evidence
  • Reasoning4 benchmarks
    Reported
  • Knowledge10 benchmarks
    Mixed evidence
  • Math1 benchmark
    Reported
  • Multilingual0 benchmarks
    Not measured
  • Multimodal5 benchmarks
    Mixed evidence
  • Inst. Following1 benchmark
    Reported
ProprietaryReasoning
Confidence:
High
reasoning

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #27 out of 200 models on the public leaderboard with an overall score of 66.27/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for BenchLM's verified leaderboard. This places it in the mid-tier of AI models, with strengths in specific benchmark categories.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is a proprietary model with a 1M token context window. It uses explicit chain-of-thought reasoning, which typically improves performance on math and complex reasoning tasks at the cost of higher latency and token usage.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) sits inside the Claude Opus 4.7 family alongside Claude Opus 4.7. BenchLM links it directly to Claude Opus 4.6 as the earlier related model in that lineage. This profile currently has 38 of 323 tracked benchmarks. BenchLM only exposes non-generated benchmark rows publicly, so missing categories stay blank until a sourced evaluation is available.

Its strongest category is Agentic (#5), while its weakest is Multimodal & Grounded (#23). This performance profile makes it particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.

Peer position

Exact provisional scores and ranks for the closest listed peers. A score can appear before a model clears the evidence threshold for a rank, so equal scores can have different rank states.

Range 66.0667.17

  1. GPT-5.6 Luna
    OpenAI
    #2267.17
    GPT-5.6 Luna is #22 with a score of 67.17.
    Compare
  2. GPT-5.2 Pro
    OpenAI
    #2367.01
    GPT-5.2 Pro is #23 with a score of 67.01.
    Compare
  3. GLM-5-Turbo
    Z.AI
    #2466.89
    GLM-5-Turbo is #24 with a score of 66.89.
    Compare
  4. GPT-5.4 nano
    OpenAI
    #2566.79
    GPT-5.4 nano is #25 with a score of 66.79.
    Compare
  5. GPT-5.3 Codex
    OpenAI
    #2666.69
    GPT-5.3 Codex is #26 with a score of 66.69.
    Compare
  6. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Current model
    Anthropic
    #2766.27
    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is #27 with a score of 66.27.
  7. GLM-5
    Z.AI
    #2866.06
    GLM-5 is #28 with a score of 66.06.
    Compare

Category percentile

More

Relative position among models eligible for each sourced category. A higher percentile means a stronger position within that category's ranked cohort; 100 is highest.

  1. Knowledge92%
    Eligible cohort rank #5 of 52Category score 87.5
  2. Agentic97%
    Eligible cohort rank #5 of 119Category score 65.9
  3. Coding88%
    Eligible cohort rank #15 of 122Category score 62.8
  4. Multimodal21%
    Eligible cohort rank #23 of 29Category score 50.5

Category evidence

Scores and ranks appear only where this model has published benchmark evidence. Categories without displayable source records remain not measured.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #5 of 119Percentile 97thWeight 22%12 benchmarksMixed sources65.9
CodingRank #15 of 122Percentile 88thWeight 20%5 benchmarksMixed sources62.8
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%4 benchmarksReported85.8
KnowledgeRank #5 of 52Percentile 92ndWeight 12%10 benchmarksMixed sources87.5
MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkReportedScore pending
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MultimodalRank #23 of 29Percentile 21stWeight 12%5 benchmarksMixed sources50.5
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkReportedScore pending

Chatbot Arena performance

Scroll horizontally to inspect confidence intervals and vote counts.

Chatbot Arena Elo, confidence interval, and vote count by evaluation view
ViewEloConfidence intervalVotes
Text Overall1502±4.249,798
Coding1553±6.614,244
Math1504±12.32,532
Instruction Following1504±6.216,905
Creative Writing1488±7.98,434
Multi-turn1518±7.78,703
Hard Prompts1526±5.033,058
Hard Prompts (English)1526±6.216,480
Longer Query1517±5.921,959

Benchmark Details

Rows below have a displayable published verification record. Each source link and provenance note remains in the page HTML while its category is closed. Source-unverified manual rows and generated rows stay hidden.

Agentic12 benchmarks
Terminal-Bench 2.0Provider exact
69.4%Weighted 38%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Terminal-Bench 2.0: 69.4%. Anthropic footnotes say this run used the Terminus-2 harness with thinking disabled.
OSWorld-VerifiedProvider exact
78%Weighted 34%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: OSWorld-Verified: 78.0%.
BrowseCompProvider exact
79.3%Weighted 28%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: BrowseComp: 79.3%.
MCP AtlasProvider exact
77.3%Display only
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: MCP-Atlas: 77.3%.
CyberGymSecondary exact
73.1%Display only
Source: OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5.5 comparison tableProvenance: OpenAI reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 73.1% on CyberGym in the GPT-5.5 launch comparison table.
AA Agentic IndexReported

Artificial Analysis Agentic Index

44.4%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
τ²-bench resultsReported

τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation

88.6%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
GDPval-AAReported

GDPval-AA normalized

49.8%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
GDPval-AAReported
1495Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
OSWorld 2.0Benchmark exact
18.2%Display only
Source: OSWorld 2.0 paperProvenance: OSWorld 2.0 reports Claude Opus 4.7 batched actions on its 500-step main table. BenchLM stores the binary completion score and notes the corresponding partial score was 48.9%.
JobBenchBenchmark exact
45.9%Display only
Source: JobBench paperProvenance: JobBench reports Opus-4.7 under Claude Code on the main-set leaderboard. BenchLM stores the reported main-set score.
AA ITBenchReported

Artificial Analysis ITBench-AA

46.7%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis: itbench-aa leaderboardProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis evaluation leaderboard. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Coding5 benchmarks
SWE-bench VerifiedProvider exact

Software Engineering Benchmark Verified

87.6%Weighted 16%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: SWE-bench Verified: 87.6%.
SWE-bench ProProvider exact
64.3%Weighted 10%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: SWE-bench Pro: 64.3%.
Terminal-Bench 2.0Provider exact
69.4%Display only
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Terminal-Bench 2.0: 69.4%. Anthropic footnotes say this run used the Terminus-2 harness with thinking disabled.
AA Coding IndexReported

Artificial Analysis Coding Index

73.6%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-SciCodeReported

Artificial Analysis SciCode

54.5%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Reasoning4 benchmarks
ARC-AGI-2Secondary exact

Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2

75.8%Weighted 31%
Source: OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5.5 comparison tableProvenance: OpenAI reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 75.8% on ARC-AGI-2 Verified in the GPT-5.5 comparison table.
MRCR v2 128K-256KSecondary exact

OpenAI MRCR v2 8-needle 128K-256K

59.2%Display only
Source: OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5.5 comparison tableProvenance: OpenAI reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 59.2% on OpenAI MRCR v2 8-needle 128K-256K in the GPT-5.5 comparison table.
AA-LCRReported

Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning

70.3%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
CritPtReported

Critical Physics Tasks

12.0%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Knowledge10 benchmarks
HLEProvider exact

Humanity's Last Exam

54.7%Weighted 45%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Humanity's Last Exam with tools: 54.7%.
GPQAProvider exact

Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A

94.2%Weighted 7%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Anthropic publishes GPQA Diamond at 94.2% in the Opus 4.7 announcement chart. BenchLM stores that exact value on both gpqaDiamond and the weighted gpqa lane for category comparability.
GPQA-DProvider exact

GPQA Diamond

94.2%Display only
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Graduate-level reasoning (GPQA Diamond): 94.2%.
HLE w/o toolsProvider exact

Humanity's Last Exam without tools

46.9%Display only
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: Humanity's Last Exam without tools: 46.9%.
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexReported
53.5%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-GPQA DiamondReported

Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond

91.4%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-HLEReported

Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam

39.6%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-Omniscience IndexReported

Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index

26.2%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-Omniscience AccuracyReported

Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy

45.8%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateReported

Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate

36.2%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Math1 benchmark
FrontierMath (legacy)Secondary exact

FrontierMath legacy aggregate

43.8%Display only
Source: OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5.5 comparison tableProvenance: OpenAI reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 43.8% on FrontierMath Tier 1-3 in the GPT-5.5 comparison table.
Multimodal5 benchmarks
OfficeQA ProSecondary exact
43.6%Weighted 30%
Source: OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5.5 comparison tableProvenance: OpenAI reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 43.6% on OfficeQA Pro in the GPT-5.5 comparison table.
CharXivProvider exact

CharXiv Reasoning

91%Weighted 25%
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: CharXiv Reasoning with tools: 91.0%.
CharXiv w/o toolsProvider exact

CharXiv Reasoning without tools

82.1%Display only
Source: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 announcement chartProvenance: CharXiv Reasoning without tools: 82.1%.
AA-MMMU-ProReported

Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro

78.8%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Design Arena WebsiteReported

Design Arena Website Elo

1325Display only
Source: OpenRouter model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only Design Arena Website Elo synced from OpenRouter model benchmark metadata. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.
Inst. Following1 benchmark
AA-IFBenchReported

Artificial Analysis IFBench

58.6%Display only
Source: Artificial Analysis model benchmarksProvenance: Display-only row synced from the current Artificial Analysis model payload. It is excluded from BenchLM weighted scoring.

Claude Opus 4.7 Family

reasoning · adaptive

Canonical Entry

Claude Opus 4.7

Related Earlier Model

Claude Opus 4.6

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) currently ranks #27 out of 200 models on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard with an overall score of 66.27. It is created by Anthropic. Its published context window is 1M.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for knowledge and understanding?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #5 out of 52 models in knowledge and understanding benchmarks with an average score of 87.5. It is among the top performers in this category.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for coding and programming?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #15 out of 122 models in coding and programming benchmarks with an average score of 62.8. There are stronger options in this category.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for mathematics?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in mathematics, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for reasoning and logic?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in reasoning and logic, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #5 out of 119 models in agentic tool use and computer tasks benchmarks with an average score of 65.9. It is among the top performers in this category.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #23 out of 29 models in multimodal and grounded tasks benchmarks with an average score of 50.5. There are stronger options in this category.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) good for instruction following?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in instruction following, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.

Which sibling models are related to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) belongs to the Claude Opus 4.7 family. Related variants on BenchLM include Claude Opus 4.7.

Does Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

Not yet. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) currently has 38 published benchmark scores out of the 323 benchmarks BenchLM tracks. BenchLM only exposes non-generated public benchmark rows, so missing categories stay blank until a sourced evaluation is available.

What is the context window size of Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has a published context window of 1M, which determines how much text it can process in a single interaction.

Last updated: July 23, 2026 · Runtime metrics stay blank until BenchLM has a sourced snapshot.

Choose with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, new releases, pricing changes, and the evidence behind them.

Free. One email per week.