Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
1.6pts
winning →
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
73.51/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 share 21 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 36 to GPT-5.5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
21
Claude Opus 4.7 only
0
GPT-5.5 only
36
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 73.51 versus 71.94. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 47.6 against 38.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.917% to 35.400%.

GPT-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7. GPT-5.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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 and GPT-5.5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGPT-5.5
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin→ 9.0GPT-5.547.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.581.6
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.558.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.585.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.557.8
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.570.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · GPT-5.5

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 35.400%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 12.5
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; GPT-5.5 scored 35.400%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 51.700%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 7.9
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; GPT-5.5 scored 51.700%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGPT-5.5$5 input / $30 outputClaude Opus 4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGPT-5.51MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%93.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%72.93%GPT-5.5 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%17.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%13.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —82%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —81.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —84.4%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —78.7%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —75.3%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —55.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —44.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —37.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —49.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1490Not comparable
JobBenchSource —42.7%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1154Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —42.1%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —46.6%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —86.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —45.8%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —31.3%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —60.6%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —84.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%69.85%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%84.7%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%56.1%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%43.0%GPT-5.5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource —58.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —82.0%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —59.2%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —58.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —74.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
AA-LCRSource 67.0%74.3%GPT-5.5 leads
CritPtSource 5.1%27.1%GPT-5.5 leads
MRCR v2 64K-128KSource —83.1%Not comparable
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —87.5%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —85%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%54.8%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%93.5%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%44.3%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%20.1%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%56.9%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%85.5%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
GPQASource —93.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —93.6%Not comparable
HLESource —52.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —41.4%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%51.700%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%35.400%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —51.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%79.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251282Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MMMU-ProSource —81.2%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —83.2%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource —54.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%75.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 71.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 35.400%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 47.6 versus 38.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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.