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

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

## At a glance

| | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $25/1M out | $25/1M out |
| Crowd score | 63% (4 votes) | 57% (3 votes) |
| provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| contextWindow | 1M tokens | 1M tokens (128K max output) |
| priceIn | $5/1M in | $5/1M in |
| priceOut | $25/1M out | $25/1M out |
| modalities | text, vision | text + image input (up to 2576px), text output |
| openWeights | no | no |
| reasoning (1-5) | 5 | 4.5 |
| coding (1-5) | 5 | 4.5 |
| writing (1-5) | 4 | 4.5 |
| speed (1-5) | 2 | 2.5 |
| valueForMoney (1-5) | 4 | 3 |

### Claude Opus 5

> Anthropic's July 2026 Opus refresh: near-Fable 5 intelligence at half the price, same $5/$25 as Opus 4.8

Strengths:
- 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

Weaknesses:
- 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

Verdict: 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.

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

### 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

## 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-5-vs-claude-opus-4-7