Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Sonnet 5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
1.0pts
← winning
65.32/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Sonnet 5 share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 11 to Claude Sonnet 5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
25
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
13
Claude Sonnet 5 only
11
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 66.27 versus 65.32. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 60 against 57.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.4% to 80.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 5. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Sonnet 5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔClaude Sonnet 5
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 23.2Claude Sonnet 588.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 6.8Claude Sonnet 581.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 2.6Claude Sonnet 557.4
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 1.9Claude Sonnet 576.7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapClaude Sonnet 5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Claude Sonnet 5

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 80.4%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 11
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 84.7%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 5.4
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 84.7%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 81.2%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 3.2
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 81.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 88.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 2.7
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 57.4%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 2.7
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 57.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputClaude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Sonnet 5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Sonnet 51MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%80.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%84.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%81.2%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%46.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%55.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 14951607Claude Sonnet 5 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —57.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1388Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —39.2%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —44.7%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —90.1%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —28.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —80.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%85.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%63.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%80.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%71.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%53.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource —28.1%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —42.7%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —61.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%70.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
CritPtSource 12.0%16.9%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%57.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%43.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%53.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%91.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%39.6%Tie
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%15.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%38.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%37.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%88.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%77%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%77.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251314Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Sonnet 5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 65.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.4% and 80.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 57.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 76.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.