Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 Pro #44 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and GPT-5.4 Pro share 6 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 6 to GPT-5.4 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 32
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 Pro only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1.05M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 4 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) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 60.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 60 against 58.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 79.3% to 89.3%. GPT-5.4 Pro does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive). That is roughly 7.2x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).
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 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | GPT-5.4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | Margin→ 28.9 | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin→ 14.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | Margin→ 7.5 | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin← 1.3 | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 79.3%B 89.3%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 10BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 89.3%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 75.8%B 83.3%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 7.5ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 83.3%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 54.7%B 58.7%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 4HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; GPT-5.4 Pro scored 58.7%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | GPT-5.4 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | 89.3% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
ReasoningGPT-5.4 Pro wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | 58.7% | GPT-5.4 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | 42.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
MultimodalGPT-5.4 Pro wins6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | GPT-5.4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or GPT-5.4 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 60.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 79.3% and 89.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or GPT-5.4 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 58.7. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 75.8. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 75.1. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or GPT-5.4 Pro?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 65.1. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
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.