Claude Opus 4.7vsGPT-4o mini
Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-4o mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $5.00 | $0.15 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $25.00 | $0.60 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.50 | $0.075 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $5.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.15Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $25.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.60Azure |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 83% | 2% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.2% | 40.2% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 64.3% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 87.6% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 80.5% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 69% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 66.1% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 69.4% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 79.1% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 79.3% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 73.1% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 46.9% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 54.7% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 75.8% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 43.8% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 22.9% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 78% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 51.5% | — |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1753 | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 82.1% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 75.2% | — |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 24.5% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 59.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 16 2026 | Jul 18 2024 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.7vsGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-4o minivsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Opus 4.7vsMuse GlimmerGPT-4o minivsMuse GlimmerClaude Opus 4.7vsGrok 4.6GPT-4o minivsGrok 4.6Claude Opus 4.7vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-4o minivsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Opus 4.7vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-4o minivsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Opus 4.7vsKimi K3GPT-4o minivsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.7 leads GPT-4o mini on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, GPQA Diamond). GPT-4o mini is cheaper on both input and output: $0.15 vs $5.00 per million input tokens, and $0.60 vs $25.00 per million output tokens. GPT-4o mini shipped 637 days before Claude Opus 4.7, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Opus 4.7) vs 128k (GPT-4o mini).
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 83% vs GPT-4o mini at 2%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 94.2% vs GPT-4o mini at 40.2%.
Claude Opus 4.7 was released by Anthropic on Apr 16 2026.
GPT-4o mini was released by OpenAI on Jul 18 2024.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4.7 94.2% vs GPT-4o mini 40.2%.
GPT-4o mini is cheaper on both input and output: $0.15 vs $5.00 per million input tokens, and $0.60 vs $25.00 per million output tokens. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Claude Opus 4.7 has a 1M context window; GPT-4o mini has 128k.