# Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 5 (2026): side-by-side comparison

Source: [GLAD-AI-TOR](https://glad-ia-tor.com) · Full page: https://glad-ia-tor.com/vs/claude-opus-4-7-vs-claude-sonnet-5
Arena: llm-models · Crowd scores are live visitor verdicts (one per person per tool, never paid, Bayesian-smoothed).

## At a glance

| | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $25/1M out | $15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31) |
| Crowd score | 57% (3 votes) | 57% (3 votes) |
| provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| contextWindow | 1M tokens (128K max output) | 1M tokens (128K max output) |
| priceIn | $5/1M in | $3/1M in ($2 intro until 2026-08-31) |
| priceOut | $25/1M out | $15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31) |
| modalities | text + image input (up to 2576px), text output | text, vision (image input, text output) |
| openWeights | no | no |
| reasoning (1-5) | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| coding (1-5) | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| writing (1-5) | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| speed (1-5) | 2.5 | 4 |
| valueForMoney (1-5) | 3 | 4.5 |

### Claude Opus 4.7

> Anthropic's April 2026 Opus: 87.6% SWE-bench Verified, 1M context, high-res vision, now behind Opus 4.8

Strengths:
- 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

Weaknesses:
- 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

Verdict: 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).

Full review: https://glad-ia-tor.com/tool/claude-opus-4-7 · Markdown: https://glad-ia-tor.com/tool/claude-opus-4-7.md

### Claude Sonnet 5

> Anthropic's most agentic Sonnet: near Opus 4.8 quality on coding and agents at $3/$15 with 1M context

Strengths:
- Large agentic gains over Sonnet 4.6: Terminal-Bench 2.1 80.4% vs 67.0%, OSWorld-Verified 81.2% vs 78.5%, SWE-bench Pro 63.2% vs 58.1%
- Matches Opus 4.8 on knowledge work (GDPval-AA v2: 1,618 vs 1,615) and nearly ties it on Humanity's Last Exam with tools (57.4% vs 57.9%) at 60% of Opus 4.8 pricing (40% during the intro window)
- 1M token context window and 128K max output; introductory pricing of $2/$10 per 1M tokens through Aug 31, 2026
- Persistent self-verifying agent behavior: hands-on reviews note it tests its own code and iterates on hard problems until solved, unlike Sonnet 4.6

Weaknesses:
- New tokenizer inflates token counts roughly 30% for the same text (1.0-1.35x per Anthropic; ~1.4x English, ~1.28x Python measured by Simon Willison), raising effective cost despite the unchanged sticker price
- Verbose and token-hungry: ~$2.29 per task vs ~$1.20 for Sonnet 4.6 in independent tests (ranked 101st of 161 for cost efficiency); at high effort cost-per-task can exceed Opus 4.8
- Measurably slower than Sonnet 4.6 on small routine edits and prone to over-engineering simple tasks (CodeRabbit hands-on review)

Verdict: Choose Sonnet 5 if you run coding, terminal or computer-use agents and want near Opus 4.8 quality at Sonnet prices, especially during the $2/$10 intro window; it is a strict upgrade over Sonnet 4.6 at low and medium effort. Budget for the new tokenizer and its verbosity: real per-task costs run well above Sonnet 4.6, and at the highest effort levels Opus 4.8 can be the better deal per solved task. Avoid it for latency-sensitive small edits or pipelines that rely on temperature and top_p, which now error. Sonnet 4.6 remains the pragmatic pick for high-volume tiny-diff workloads.

Full review: https://glad-ia-tor.com/tool/claude-sonnet-5 · Markdown: https://glad-ia-tor.com/tool/claude-sonnet-5.md

## More

Full llm-models ranking: https://glad-ia-tor.com/hall-of-fame/llm-models

---
This markdown version exists for AI assistants; the canonical page is https://glad-ia-tor.com/vs/claude-opus-4-7-vs-claude-sonnet-5