AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSOpenAIGPT-5.5

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

Claude Opus 4.7 is the superior choice here. It holds a 3.2% average lead in benchmarks while actually being more cost-effective (saving 1.1x on API costs compared to GPT-5.5). Unless you have specific provider lock-in, go with Claude Opus 4.7.

Was this recommendation helpful?

Model Specs

Claude Opus 4.7

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+5.7%)

64.3%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.6%)

94.2%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.1x cheaper

$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00

Context Window

1.05M tokens

Model Specs

GPT-5.5

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)

58.6%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)

93.6%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)

$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00

Context WindowLarger

1.05M tokens

Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5

Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper than GPT-5.5. Claude Opus 4.7 has a blended cost of $10.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.1x cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $11.25/1M tokens.

Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases) compared to GPT-5.5 which scores 58.6%.

Related Matchups

Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5.

Browse More Comparisons

AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7

AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7

OpenAIGPT-5.6 Luna

Compare Specs

Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

Open Model Finder