Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Opus 4.7 Verdict
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 67.6 vs 63.7.
- Claude Opus 4.7 is stronger in human preference, multimodal.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, knowledge, maths, reasoning, composite, long context.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is 2.5× cheaper ($4.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) streams 1.8× faster (141 vs 81 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.7 | 67.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.5 | 69.5 |
| Coding score | 61.6 | 69.8 |
| Human preference score | 68.6 | – |
| Knowledge score | 62.3 | 65.4 |
| Maths score | 67.1 | 72.9 |
| Multimodal score | 66.8 | – |
| Reasoning score | 65.3 | 81.1 |
| Composite score | – | 72.6 |
| Long context score | – | 66.6 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | 81 tok/s | 141 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 1.5 s | 487.1 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 95.6% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 88.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 80.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 100.0% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 46.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | 61.8% |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | – |
| SciCode | – | 61.0% |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | – |
| APEX-Agents | – | 75.5% |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | – |
| ProofBench | – | 100.0% |
| GSO-Bench | 44.1% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.3 | – |
| LMArena Text | 1494 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1519 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1555 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | – |
| LMArena Agent | – | 12 |
| LiveBench | – | 75.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 91.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 91.4% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 56.3% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 59.5% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 78.0% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 56.8% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | – | 56 |
| AA-LCR | – | 82.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 32.3 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 55.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 61.0% |
| AIME (Vals) | 96.3% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 85.1% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 89.9% | – |
| LegalBench | 85.3% | – |
| CorpFin | 66.1% | – |
| TaxEval | 75.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 68.5% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 82.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 90.2% | – |
| HiL-Bench | 41.7% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.3% | – |
| CritPt | – | 31.4% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | – | 67.0% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 57.5% |
| CaseLaw v2 | 68.4% | – |
| Code Migration | 43.9% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 63.7% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | 51.5% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 6.7% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | 38.5% | – |
| MedCode | 54.9% | – |
| MedScribe | 83.0% | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | 85.5% | – |
| MortgageTax | 70.3% | – |
| ProgramBench | 0.0% | – |
| SAGE | 56.1% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | 63.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | 68.5% | – |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 67.4% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 71.0% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | 40.3% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | 48.6% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | 38.5% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1492 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1483 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1514 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1508 | – |
| LMArena Search | 1212 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1494 | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 13.0% | 65.0% |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | – |
| ForecastBench | 60.3% | – |
| CursorBench | – | 55.5% |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1323.0 | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10936.8 | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | – |
| FrontierSWE | – | 61.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | – | 63.6% |
| AutomationBench | – | 71.8% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 25.8% |
| MLCR | – | 75.0% |
| Harvey LAB | – | 2.8% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | – | 54.0% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | – | 53.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | – | 1823 |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Claude Sonnet 5.5?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 67.6 vs 63.7. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Claude Sonnet 5.5 for coding?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher in coding (70 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Claude Sonnet 5.5 for agentic tasks?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 68 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper: $4.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 streams faster: 141 against 81 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.