Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
1.3pts
winning →
Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab
67.54/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Inkling #20 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Inkling share 26 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 6 to Inkling.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
26
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
12
Inkling only
6
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 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

Inkling has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.54 versus 66.27. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.5 against 65.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 87.6% to 77.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) does hit back in coding, 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 $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 5.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 Inkling
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔInkling
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 11.4Inkling76.5
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 10.0Inkling68.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 8.4Inkling51.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 5.7Inkling69.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapInklingNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling97.1
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Inkling

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 77.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 54.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Inkling scored 54.3%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 82%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Inkling scored 82%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 46%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8.7
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Inkling scored 46%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 87.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.3
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) 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)InklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputInkling has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MInkling1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%63.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%77.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%74.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%32.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%36.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 14951239Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource —1257Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —836Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —23.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%77.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%54.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%63.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%52.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%46.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%63.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%5.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
GPQASource 94.2%87.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%87.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%46%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%30%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%40.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%87.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%29.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%2.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%40.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%63.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —97.1%Not comparable
MultimodalInkling wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%82%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%78.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%73.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)InklingResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.54 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 87.6% and 77.6%.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 51.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 68.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 69.4. 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 Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 65.1. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.