Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
10.0pts
winning →
81.96/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.6 Sol share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 31 to GPT-5.6 Sol.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
15
Claude Opus 4.7 only
6
GPT-5.6 Sol only
31
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol 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 15 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-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 71.94. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 87.5 against 38.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.917% to 83.000%.

GPT-5.6 Sol 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-5.6 Sol 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-5.6 Sol
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGPT-5.6 Sol
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin→ 48.9GPT-5.6 Sol87.5
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Sol92.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Sol64.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Sol94.6
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Sol83.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · GPT-5.6 Sol

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 83.000%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 60.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 89.000%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 45.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 outputClaude Opus 4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGPT-5.6 Sol1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%85.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%62.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —91.9%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —92.2%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —84.5%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —33.7%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —58%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —54.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —61.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1736Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1501Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —56.2%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —33.0%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —51.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —87.2%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —65.9%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —88%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%56.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —64.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —91.9%Not comparable
deepSweSource —72.7%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource —60.6%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —67.2%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source —87.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —77.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%73.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
CritPtSource 5.1%32.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
ARC-AGI-3Source —7.8%Not comparable
GeneBench-ProSource —28.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%58.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%94.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%47.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%21.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%58.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%88.8%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
GPQASource —94.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —94.6%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —60.5%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —33.1%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%89.000%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%83.000%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —89%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%83.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —83%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —84.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%72.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 71.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 83.000%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 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.