Claude Opus 4.7vsComposer 2.5
Claude Opus 4.7 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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%Best | 54% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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% | — |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike 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%Best | 79.8% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 56.1% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 64.8%Best | 63.2% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel'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. | 75% | 92%Best |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can 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% | 73%Best |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can 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%Best | 69.3% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan 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% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 79.3% | — |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 73.1% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity'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% | — |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-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% | — |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 43.8% | — |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 4Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 22.9% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.2% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 78% | — |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 51.5% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures 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 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval (win/tie rate)How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 82.1% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 75.2% | — |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 24.5% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests 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% | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1503 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1557 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Apr 16 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Opus 4.7 or Composer 2.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 leads Composer 2.5 on 4 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Claude Opus 4.7 shipped 32 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 64.3% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 80.5% vs Composer 2.5 at 79.8%. On CursorBench v3.1, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 64.8% vs Composer 2.5 at 63.2%. On Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 92% vs Claude Opus 4.7 at 75%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Composer 2.5 leads at 73% vs Claude Opus 4.7 at 66.1%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Claude Opus 4.7 leads at 69.4% vs Composer 2.5 at 69.3%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.7 was released by Anthropic on Apr 16 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Claude Opus 4.7 64.3% vs Composer 2.5 54%.
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.7vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude Opus 4.7vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Opus 4.7vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerClaude Opus 4.7vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Opus 4.7vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Opus 4.7vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3