Head-to-head
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: which AI model wins in 2026?
Claude Opus 5 ($25/1M out) and Claude Opus 4.7 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 7 community votes, Claude Opus 5 leads with 63% approval.
Quick verdict
On Reasoning, pick Claude Opus 5: the arena rates it 5/5 against 4.5/5 for Claude Opus 4.7. Both start at the same price: $25/1M out.
Line-by-line comparison
Strengths and weaknesses
Claude Opus 5
- Ranked #1 in composite intelligence across 190 models on Artificial Analysis at launch, and 43.3% on Frontier-Bench v0.1 vs 34.4% for GPT-5.6 Sol and 33.7% for Claude Fable 5
- 3.9x better than GPT-5.6 Sol on ARC-AGI-3 novel reasoning (30.2% vs 7.8%), and Elo 1861 on GDPval-AA v2 economic knowledge work, ahead of Fable 5 (1747)
- 79.2% on SWE-bench Pro, within a point of Fable 5 (80.0%) and 10 points above Opus 4.8 (69.2%), at half Fable's price; Cursor's co-founder calls it 'near Fable 5 intelligence at Opus speed and cost'
- Same $5/$25 pricing as Opus 4.8 with a bigger window: 1M context is now the default and only tier, with 128K max output and prompt caching from 512 tokens
- Dual-use safety classifiers trigger 85% less often than on Fable 5, and the new default fallback mode avoids the silent mid-session refusals that plagued Fable's launch
- Self-verifies its work without being told, handles mid-conversation tool changes (beta) without busting the prompt cache, and ships day one on Claude.ai, the API, Bedrock, Vertex and Microsoft Foundry
- Notably slow and very verbose: 52.6 output tokens/s and 68 seconds to first token on Artificial Analysis, and it consumed ~100M output tokens during their eval vs a 63M median
- The verbosity is a real-world cost problem: CodeRabbit measured it reading ~50% more and writing ~65% more than reference frontier models per code-review call
- No actual price cut despite the 'cost-efficient' narrative: identical to Opus 4.8 ($5/$25), nearly GPT-5.6 money ($5/$30), and more than 2x comparable Gemini or Grok tiers
- Reviewers describe a 'brilliant but annoying' personality: over-verification, hedging, and occasional refusals of mundane tasks like resolving a merge conflict (Lenny's Newsletter field review)
- Breaking API change for Opus 4.8 migrants: thinking is on by default and cannot be disabled at xhigh or max effort (returns a 400); Fast mode ($10/$50, ~2.5x faster) is API-only, not on Bedrock or Vertex
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
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 is the sane default of the Series 5 range: most of Fable 5's intelligence (and more than Fable on Frontier-Bench and GDPval) at exactly half the token price, with classifiers that trigger 85% less often. If you migrated workloads to Fable 5 for capability but resent the bill or the false-positive refusals, move them here; if you are still on Opus 4.8, the upgrade is 10 SWE-bench Pro points for free. The two honest reasons to look elsewhere: latency and verbosity. At 52.6 tokens/s with 68s to first token it is a poor fit for interactive UX, and its token appetite quietly inflates real costs beyond the sticker price, so budget-sensitive high-volume pipelines still belong on Sonnet 5, Gemini or DeepSeek. Keep Fable 5 only for the longest autonomous runs where its slight SWE-bench Pro edge compounds.
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).
What the crowd says
On Claude Opus 5
“The sticker price is unchanged but my invoice is not: it writes essays where Opus 4.8 wrote answers. 68 seconds to first token killed it for our support chat, we went back to Sonnet 5.”
“Fed it a 40-tab financial model with cross-sheet formulas and asked for a scenario deck. It got the edge cases the analysts missed. For document-heavy enterprise work this is the best model I have used.”
“We moved off Fable 5 because the bio classifier kept flagging our genomics tooling. Opus 5 does the same work at half the price and I have not seen a single silent reroute since.”
“Migrated our agents from Opus 4.8 the day it dropped. Same bill, and tasks that used to stall at the planning stage now just finish. The 10-point SWE-bench jump is not marketing, our merge queue feels it.”
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.”
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Claude Opus 4.7?
The crowd currently sides with Claude Opus 5: 63% recommend it, versus 57% for Claude Opus 4.7 (7 votes). On Reasoning, Claude Opus 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 5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
They cost the same to start: both begin at $25/1M out.
How much do Claude Opus 5 and Claude Opus 4.7 cost per 1M tokens?
Claude Opus 5: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 4.7: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.