Head-to-head
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5: which AI model wins in 2026?
Claude Opus 4.7 ($25/1M out) and GPT-5.5 ($30/1M 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, pick GPT-5.5: the arena rates it 5/5 against 4.5/5 for Claude Opus 4.7. On budget, Claude Opus 4.7 wins: it starts at $25/1M out versus $30/1M out for GPT-5.5.
Line-by-line comparison
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- Superseded by Opus 4.8 at the same $5/$25 within ~3 months, and real-time cybersecurity safeguards can false-positive on legitimate security work
GPT-5.5
- 1M-token context window (1,050,000) with 128K max output and reasoning effort tunable from none to xhigh
- State-of-the-art ARC-AGI-2 at 85.0% (vs 73.3% for GPT-5.4) and Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 82.7%
- Strong agentic coding autonomy: devs report it one-shots tasks that took GPT-5.4 multiple turns and fixes its own mistakes; +50 points on Code Arena vs GPT-5.4
- Aggressive discounts: 90% off cached input ($0.50/1M) and 50% off via Batch or Flex ($2.50/$15)
- Fast for a frontier reasoner: devs say it is the first GPT model comfortable to run at medium or low thinking effort
- List price doubled vs GPT-5.4 ($5/$30 vs $2.50/$15) for the same 1M-token context window
- Overly literal instruction-following: devs report it fails to infer intent in obvious places where Claude succeeds
- Trails Claude Opus 4.8 on SWE-bench Pro (58.6% vs 69.2%); HN developers still favor Claude roughly 2:1 for coding
- Sometimes too conservative with code changes or skips deep reasoning entirely, answering immediately on complex prompts
- Long-context surcharge: prompts over 272K input tokens are billed 2x input and 1.5x output for the whole session
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
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 GPT-5.5
Pick GPT-5.5 over GPT-5.4 if you need stronger agentic autonomy, terminal-heavy workflows, or SOTA abstract reasoning, but know the list price doubled from GPT-5.4's $2.50/$15 to $5/$30 while the 1M-token context stayed the same. Teams doing high-stakes multi-file refactoring may still prefer Claude Opus, which leads SWE-bench Pro (69.2% vs 58.6%) and infers intent better from loose prompts. Budget-sensitive users should mind the 272K-token surcharge and reports of faster limit burn, and lean on caching, Batch, or Flex to halve costs.
What the crowd says
On Claude Opus 4.7
“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.”
“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.”
“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 GPT-5.5
“It is painfully literal. Where Claude infers intent in obvious places, 5.5 wants everything spelled out. And the price doubled vs 5.4 for the same 1M context.”
“85 on ARC-AGI-2 and you can feel it. Stuff that used to stall my agent just resolves now. 1M context with 128K output covers every workflow I have.”
“5.5 one-shots tasks that took 5.4 three turns, and it fixes its own mistakes mid-run instead of doubling down. The reasoning effort dial from none to xhigh is genuinely useful.”
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than GPT-5.5?
On Reasoning, GPT-5.5 rates higher (5/5 vs 4.5/5). 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 GPT-5.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper: it starts at $25/1M out, while GPT-5.5 starts at $30/1M out.
How much do Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 cost per 1M tokens?
Claude Opus 4.7: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. GPT-5.5: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $30/1M out per 1M output tokens.