AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSOpenAIGPT-5.5
Our Take
We recommend choosing Claude Opus 4.7 as it delivers superior coding capability while matching the reasoning accuracy of GPT-5.5 at a 1.1x API cost saving. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 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 GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%, while GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%.
Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.5 pricing ($5/M input, $30/M output) is 1.1x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+5.7%)
64.3%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.6%)
94.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.1x cheaper
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5
Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper than GPT-5.5. Claude Opus 4.7 has a blended cost of $10.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.1x cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $11.25/1M 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-5.5 which scores 58.6%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5.
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.