Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Jamba Large

Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#17); Jamba Large does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

Jamba Large AI21 Labs

32.6

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 2 categories and Jamba Large in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.7 to 17.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 80.7% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 26.1% for Jamba Large.
  • Jamba Large is cheaper at $2 / $8 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Jamba Large has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
ProviderAnthropicAI21 Labs
Noometry Index58.432.6
Released2026-04-142025-07-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M256K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2
Output $ / M tokens$25$8
Results tracked662

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.9 (#10), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1557—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
LMArena Coding1519—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.7 (#24), Jamba Large: 17.4

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%26.1%
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1507—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1499—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), Jamba Large: 37.0

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%9.7%
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
LMArena Expert1521—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
LMArena Vision1317—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
LMArena Non-English1481—
LMArena Chinese1530—
LMArena French1505—
LMArena German1494—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1466—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1497—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Jamba Large: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Jamba Large
LMArena Text1491—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1506—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Jamba Large?

Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#17); Jamba Large does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Jamba Large?

Jamba Large is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $8 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Jamba Large share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Jamba Large has 2.

Related comparisons

Go deeper