Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.5 (2025) and Claude Opus 4.7 (2026) are frontier-tier reasoning models from Anthropic. Claude Opus 4.5 ships a 200k-token context window, while Claude Opus 4.7 ships a 1m-token context window. On SWE-bench Verified, Claude Opus 4.7 leads by 6.7 pts. On pricing, both list $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked route. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for coding; token pricing is tied, so keep Claude Opus 4.5 only for already-validated prompts or route constraints.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 200k | 1m |
| Cheapest output | $25/1M tokens | $25/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 6 tracked | 6 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 5 rows | SWE-bench Verified leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Claude Opus 4.5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Claude Opus 4.7 holds a shared-benchmark lead on SWE-bench Verified, ahead by 6.7 points.
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags Claude Opus 4.7 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Claude Opus 4.5
$10,250
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Microsoft Foundry
Claude Opus 4.7
$10,250
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Anthropic
Estimated monthly gap: $0.00. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, and GCP Vertex AI; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
- Provider overlap exists on Microsoft Foundry, Anthropic, and GCP Vertex AI; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Cheapest tracked output pricing is tied, so migration risk shifts to quality, latency, and provider packaging.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-11-01 | 2026-04-16 |
| Context window | 200k | 1m |
| Parameters | — | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Openness | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use with conditions |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-12 | 2026-01 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/1M tokens | $5/1M tokens |
| Output price | $25/1M tokens | $25/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| Code execution | Yes | Yes |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 80.9 | 87.6 |
| SWE-bench Pro | 41.8 | 64.3 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 87.0 | 94.2 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6 | 75.8 |
| Chatbot Arena | 1466.0 | 1503.0 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, SWE-bench Verified has Claude Opus 4.5 at 80.9 and Claude Opus 4.7 at 87.6, with Claude Opus 4.7 ahead by 6.7 points; SWE-bench Pro has Claude Opus 4.5 at 41.8 and Claude Opus 4.7 at 64.3, with Claude Opus 4.7 ahead by 22.5 points; Google-Proof Q&A has Claude Opus 4.5 at 87 and Claude Opus 4.7 at 94.2, with Claude Opus 4.7 ahead by 7.2 points. The largest visible gap is 22.5 points on SWE-bench Pro, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint is close: both models cover vision, multimodal input, reasoning mode, function calling, and tool use. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
For cost, Claude Opus 4.5 lists $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider, while Claude Opus 4.7 lists $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend is tied on the cheapest tracked routes. Availability is 6 providers versus 6, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Claude Opus 4.5 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 when coding workflow support and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1m tokens, while Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Neither is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Both list $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked route. Provider discounts, batch pricing, or route-specific tiers can still change the final bill.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7 open source?
Claude Opus 4.5 is listed under Proprietary. Claude Opus 4.7 is listed under Proprietary. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Both Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Which is better for multimodal input, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Both Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Where can I run Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Opus 4.5 is available on Microsoft Foundry, Anthropic, GCP Vertex AI, AWS Bedrock, and OpenRouter. Claude Opus 4.7 is available on Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, GCP Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, and OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-25. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.