Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-4o

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 38 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

GPT-4o OpenAI

28.6

Rank #324 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 10 categories and GPT-4o in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 10.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 6.4% for GPT-4o.
  • GPT-4o is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index58.328.6
Released2026-04-142024-05-13
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M128K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$25$10
Results tracked6672

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), GPT-4o: 24.8 (#328)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
SWE-bench Verified83.5%31%
GSO44.1%0%
WeirdML76.4%25.1%
LMArena Coding15181297
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—21.6%
Aider Polyglot—45.3%
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—51.1%
LiveBench Coding—51.4%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—61.1%
CadEval—26%
ALE-Bench1,323—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—72.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), GPT-4o: 21.0 (#141)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Search12331006
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
GDPval—9.9%
TheAgentCompany—8.6%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
Cybench—12.5%
PostTrainBench28.6%—
BALROG—32.3%
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
METR Time Horizons—40.8%
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), GPT-4o: 9.4 (#343)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
ARC-AGI-275.8%0%
SimpleBench61.7%17.8%
ARC-AGI-193.5%4.5%
CritPt12%0%
Chess Puzzles30%13%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061281
DTBench94.7%64.5%
LMCA52.2%16.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25128.97
ForecastBench60.357.7
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
EnigmaEval—0.8%
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LiveBench Reasoning—55.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—60.9%
LiveBench—55.3%

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), GPT-4o: 10.6 (#312)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%0.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%6.4%
LMArena Math14991285
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%0.3%
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—29.3%
LiveBench Math—49.5%
MATH Level 5—53.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), GPT-4o: 28.8 (#242)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
GPQA Diamond90.2%49.2%
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%2.7%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%26%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%9.6%
LMArena Expert15211250
MMLU-Pro—71.3%
Confabulations—15.3%
GPQA (HELM)—52%
MMLU—88.1%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), GPT-4o: 34.5 (#91)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Vision13161137
Video-MME—71.9%
GeoBench—71%
VPCT—40%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—
ScienceQA—88.5%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), GPT-4o: 43.2 (#186)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Non-English14801283
LMArena Chinese15311277
LMArena French15031304
LMArena German14951282
LMArena Japanese14721257
LMArena Korean14641234
LMArena Russian14941286
LMArena Spanish14951292

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), GPT-4o: 66.6 (#207)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Instruction Following14981278
LiveBench Instruction Following—68.6%
IFEval—81.7%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), GPT-4o: 39.4 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Longer Query15051289
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), GPT-4o: 52.6 (#166)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
LMArena Text14901300
LMArena Creative Writing14861292
LMArena Multi-Turn15051302
Short-Story Creative Writing—81.8%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
WildBench—82.8%
EQ-Bench 41311—
LiveBench Language—47.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than GPT-4o?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-4o?

GPT-4o is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-4o better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 24.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-4o share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4o has 72.

Related comparisons

Go deeper