AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSAnthropicClaude Opus 5
Our Take
We recommend choosing Claude Opus 5 as it delivers superior coding capability while matching the reasoning accuracy of Claude Opus 4.7 at a 1.0x API cost saving. Choose Claude Opus 5 for superior overall value and coding efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 64.3%, while Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%, while Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%.
Cost Efficiency: Claude Opus 4.7 pricing ($5/M input, $25/M output) is 1.0x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
64.3%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.5%)
94.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+14.9%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 5
Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 5 cost the same, with a blended cost of $10.00 per 1 million tokens.
Claude Opus 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 79.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Claude Opus 4.7 which scores 64.3%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.