Capability
72.4/100
field median 58.3
#15 of 226 ranked models
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
Start the free Radar BriefReleased Apr 16, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of August 26, 2026 · How the score is built
Knowledge ranks #7. Particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
21 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
72.4/100
field median 58.3
#15 of 226 ranked models
Price
$5input / $25 output
input median $1
blended $15
Speed
Not measured
field median 97 tok/s
Time to first token not measured
Context
1Mtokens
field median 203,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #12 of 138Percentile 92ndWeight 22%7 benchmarksMixed sources | 63.7 | #12 of 138 | 92nd | 22% | 7 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| CodingRank #16 of 144Percentile 90thWeight 20%3 benchmarksVerified | 65.3 | #16 of 144 | 90th | 20% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%3 benchmarksMixed sources | 75.2 | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 3 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| KnowledgeRank #7 of 60Percentile 90thWeight 12%4 benchmarksVerified | 83.1 | #7 of 60 | 90th | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 1 benchmark | Reported |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #29 of 35Percentile 18thWeight 12%3 benchmarksMixed sources | 48.1 | #29 of 35 | 18th | 12% | 3 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score87.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap8.4 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench Pro | Score64.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 80.3% | Gap16 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score69.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap22.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score69.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap22.5 behind | WeightWeighted 38% | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score78% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap8.1 behind | WeightWeighted 34% | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp | Score79.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.2% | Gap12.9 behind | WeightWeighted 28% | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score77.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap10.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| CyberGym | Score73.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Fugu Cyber · 86.9% | Gap13.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score18.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 70.6% | Gap52.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| JobBench | Score45.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next · 55.7% | Gap9.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score75.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.5% | Gap16.7 behind | WeightWeighted 31% | Secondary exact |
| MRCR v2 128K-256KOpenAI MRCR v2 8-needle 128K-256K | Score59.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 87.5% | Gap28.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3 | Score0.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 30.2% | Gap30 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score54.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 64.7% | Gap10 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score94.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap1.3 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score94.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap1.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score46.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 59% | Gap12.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)FrontierMath legacy aggregate | Score43.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89% | Gap45.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA Pro | Score43.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 66.9% | Gap23.3 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Secondary exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score91% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 93.5% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without tools | Score82.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 88.9% | Gap6.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
February 2026
Claude Opus 4.6Score 68.1 · $5 / $25
Apr 16, 2026 · you are here
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Score 72.4 · $5 / $25
May 28, 2026
Claude Opus 4.8Score 76.5 · $5 / $25
reasoning · adaptive
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #15 of 226 on the public leaderboard with a score of 72.41/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) sits in the Claude Opus 4.7 family with Claude Opus 4.7. Its explicit predecessor is Claude Opus 4.6. 21 of 406 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Knowledge at #7, while its lowest eligible position is Multimodal & Grounded at #29. particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
Anthropic · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Start the free Radar Brief
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #15 out of 226 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 72.41/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 21 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #7 out of 60 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 83.1/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #16 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 65.3/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #12 out of 138 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 63.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) ranks #29 out of 35 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 48.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) belongs to the Claude Opus 4.7 family. Related tracked variants include Claude Opus 4.7. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
No. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) currently has 39 source-displayable rows across 406 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.
Related resources
Last updated August 26, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.