AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSOpenAIGPT-5.6 Terra

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

Our Take

Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 1.1%. We recommend choosing GPT-5.6 Terra as it is the more cost-effective option (being 1.8x cheaper) without sacrificing any real-world capability.

Was this recommendation helpful?

Model Specs

Claude Opus 4.7

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.9%)

64.3%

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

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.3%)

94.2%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)

$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00

Context Window

1.05M tokens

Model Specs

GPT-5.6 Terra

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)

63.4%

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

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)

92.9%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.8x cheaper

$5.63Input: $2.50 | Output: $15.00

Context WindowLarger

1.05M tokens

Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.6 Terra

GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. GPT-5.6 Terra has a blended cost of $5.63/1M tokens, which is about 1.8x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at $10.00/1M 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-5.6 Terra which scores 63.4%.

Related Matchups

Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.6 Terra.

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