Head-to-head

Claude Opus 4.7 logovsClaude Opus 4.8 logo

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8: which AI model wins in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.7 ($25/1M out) and Claude Opus 4.8 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 6 community votes, Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 57% approval.

Quick verdict

On Reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8 are tied at 4.5/5. Both start at the same price: $25/1M out.

Line-by-line comparison

From
$25/1M out$5 in / $25 out per 1M tokens on the standard API tier, flat up to the full 1M context (no long-context premium); Batch API -50%; new tokenizer yields ~30% more tokens than pre-4.7 models.
$25/1M outStandard tier $5/$25 per 1M tokens (unchanged from Opus 4.7); fast mode research preview at $10/$50 (vs $30/$150 on Opus 4.7's deprecated fast tier); batch API 50% off at $2.50/$12.50; no long-context surcharge up to 1M tokens; prompt cache reads at $0.50/1M.
Provider
Anthropic
Anthropic
Context window
1M tokens (128K max output)
1M tokens (128K max output)
Input price
$5/1M in
$5/1M in
Output price
$25/1M out
$25/1M out
Modalities
text + image input (up to 2576px), text output
text, vision (image input up to 2576px, text output)
Open weights
No
No
Crowd score
57%(3)
57%(3)
Arena ratings (1-5)
Reasoning
4.5
4.5
Coding
4.5
5.0
Writing
4.5
5.0
Speed
2.5
3.0
Value
3.0
3.5

Strengths and weaknesses

Claude Opus 4.7

  • 87.6% SWE-bench Verified (up from 80.8% on Opus 4.6) and 64.3% SWE-bench Pro at launch, ahead of GPT-5.4 (57.7%) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (54.2%)
  • 1M-token context window and 128K max output at flat $5/$25 pricing with no long-context premium (300K output via Batch API beta)
  • First Claude with high-resolution vision: accepts images up to 2576px on the long edge with pixel-accurate coordinates, ~3x prior detail
  • Standout code review: finds more real bugs with stronger cross-file reasoning than rivals in independent tests, and 21% fewer document-reasoning errors than Opus 4.6
  • Fine cost control via new xhigh effort level and Task Budgets (beta): low-effort 4.7 roughly matches medium-effort 4.6 output quality
  • Recent knowledge: reliable cutoff of January 2026, the freshest of any Claude model at release
  • New tokenizer inflates token counts roughly 30% for the same text versus pre-4.7 models (per Anthropic's own docs), raising effective per-request cost despite the unchanged sticker price
  • Very verbose in agentic use: one benchmark found GPT-5.5 used 72% fewer output tokens on equivalent coding tasks, and reviewers call its narration over-communicative
  • Breaking API changes bite migrators: temperature/top_p/top_k and thinking budget_tokens now return 400 errors, and thinking text is hidden by default
  • Moderate latency with minutes-long turns at high effort; fast mode is a premium research preview already deprecated on 4.7
  • Superseded by Opus 4.8 at the same $5/$25 within ~3 months, and real-time cybersecurity safeguards can false-positive on legitimate security work

Claude Opus 4.8

  • SWE-Bench Pro 69.2% (vs 64.3% for Opus 4.7) and beats prior Opus models on CursorBench at every effort level; strong real-world reports on large refactors and multi-file bug hunts
  • About 4x less likely than Opus 4.7 to let flaws in its own generated code pass unflagged; big jump on math reasoning (USAMO 2026: 96.7% vs 69.3%)
  • 1M-token context and 128K output at unchanged $5/$25 pricing, with no long-context premium; batch API at 50% off ($2.50/$12.50)
  • Fast mode (research preview) delivers up to 2.5x output speed at $10/$50, 3x cheaper than Opus 4.7's fast tier ($30/$150)
  • Unique API features for agents: mid-conversation system messages that preserve the prompt cache, and Dynamic Workflows spawning parallel subagents in Claude Code
  • 84% on Online-Mind2Web browser automation and record score on Legal Agent Benchmark (first model past 10% all-pass); strong enterprise knowledge work (Box reports 87% vs 77% internally)
  • Turn-by-turn regressions reported: missed obvious instructions in planning docs, answering a narrow slice of the goal, and worse one-shot simple UI generation than 4.7
  • Writing style criticized by heavy users: excessive hedging, over-cautious editing that 'cuts anything bold or funny' (Steve Yegge), and pushback loops even against well-evidenced theses
  • Language-mixing quirk: users report random Chinese, Cyrillic, or Greek insertions in long research threads
  • Visible quality degradation past ~200K tokens in hands-on use despite the advertised 1M window
  • Vending-Bench regression: fell for scam suppliers about 30x more than 4.7 and negotiates worse (a side effect of stricter honesty alignment)

Cast your verdict

One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.

Claude Opus 4.7$25/1M out
57%crowd score · 3
Claude Opus 4.8$25/1M out
57%crowd score · 3

The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.7

Choose Opus 4.7 only if you are already pinned to it for reproducibility: Opus 4.8 costs the same $5/$25, keeps an identical API surface, and outperforms it, making it the better default for new projects. It remains a very strong pick for agentic coding, code review and 1M-context document work, and is a clear upgrade over Opus 4.6. Teams migrating from 4.6 should budget for breaking API changes and a tokenizer that yields roughly 30% more tokens per prompt. Cost-sensitive users should look at Sonnet 5, which delivers near-Opus quality at $3/$15 (intro $2/$10 through August 31, 2026).

The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.8

A drop-in upgrade for Opus 4.7 users: identical API surface and $5/$25 pricing with real gains on long-horizon agentic coding, code review, and enterprise analysis. Choose it if you run Claude Code, multi-file migrations, security audits, or agent pipelines that inspect, act, and verify over many steps. Skip it for quick one-shot UI snippets or prompts tightly tuned to 4.7 behavior, where users report regressions, and pick Sonnet 5 ($3/$15, intro $2/$10 through Aug 2026) if cost matters more than ceiling capability. Writers sensitive to hedging and over-cautious editing may find its style frustrating.

What the crowd says

On Claude Opus 4.7

Thumbs Downicus

Watch your invoices. New tokenizer counts ~30% more tokens for the same text, and it narrates every tiny step. Sticker price unchanged, effective cost definitely not.

The Fair Reviewer

Came from 4.6 and stopped chunking repos entirely. 1M context, 128K output, flat $5/$25 with no long-context premium. That pricing decision alone won me over.

Sir Ships-A-Lot

87.6 SWE-bench Verified is not just marketing, it closes tickets GPT-5.4 fumbles. And the hi-res vision with pixel-accurate coords finally makes screenshot debugging useful.

On Claude Opus 4.8

Judge Dreadful

Writing took a hit. It hedges everything and edits any bold or funny line out of my drafts. Also caught it answering a narrow slice of my planning doc and calling it done.

Champion of Vibes

Threw USAMO-level math at it for a lark and it just grinds through. 96.7 vs 69 for 4.7 tracks with what I see. Same $5/$25, 1M context, no excuse not to switch.

Glorius Maximus

Upgraded from 4.7 for a monorepo refactor and the difference is real. It actually flags its own sketchy code instead of shipping it. Multi-file bug hunts feel way less babysat.

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Claude Opus 4.8?

The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8?

They cost the same to start: both begin at $25/1M out.

How much do Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8 cost per 1M tokens?

Claude Opus 4.7: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 4.8: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.