AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSOpenAIGPT-5.4
Our Take
We recommend Claude Opus 4.7 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 1.8x cheaper GPT-5.4 to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, Claude Opus 4.7 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for complex development tasks, or GPT-5.4 for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 64.3%, while GPT-5.4 scored 57.7%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%, while GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 pricing ($2.5/M input, $15/M output) is 1.8x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+6.6%)
64.3%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.4%)
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)
57.7%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
92.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.8x cheaper
$5.63Input: $2.50 | Output: $15.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. GPT-5.4 has a blended cost of $5.63/1M tokens, which is about 1.8x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to GPT-5.4 which scores 57.7%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.4.
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.