Claude Opus 4.7 vs ERNIE 5.1
Claude Opus 4.7 (2026) and ERNIE 5.1 (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Anthropic and Baidu AI. Claude Opus 4.7 ships a 1m-token context window, while ERNIE 5.1 ships a 128k-token context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Claude Opus 4.7 leads by 12.1 pts. On pricing, ERNIE 5.1 costs $0.59/1M input tokens versus $5/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
ERNIE 5.1 is ~747% cheaper at $0.59/1M; pay for Claude Opus 4.7 only for coding workflow support.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Claude Opus 4.7 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | tool-calling agents |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | RAG, Agents, and Long context |
| Context window | 1m | 128k |
| Cheapest output | $25/1M tokens | $2.65/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 7 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | Google-Proof Q&A leader | 2 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Claude Opus 4.7 leads the largest shared benchmark signal on Google-Proof Q&A by 12.1 points.
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Claude Opus 4.7 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Claude Opus 4.7 uniquely exposes Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Claude Opus 4.7 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- ERNIE 5.1 has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $2.65/1M tokens.
- Local decision data tags ERNIE 5.1 for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Claude Opus 4.7
$10,250
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Anthropic
ERNIE 5.1
$1,135
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Baidu Qianfan
Estimated monthly gap: $9,116. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Claude Opus 4.7 and ERNIE 5.1; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- ERNIE 5.1 is $22.35/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for ERNIE 5.1 and Claude Opus 4.7; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Claude Opus 4.7 is $22.35/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Claude Opus 4.7 adds Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2026-05-09 |
| Context window | 1m | 128k |
| Parameters | — | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Claude Opus 4.7 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/1M tokens | $0.59/1M tokens |
| Output price | $25/1M tokens | $2.65/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.7 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | Yes | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | ERNIE 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 94.2 | 82.1 |
| Chatbot Arena | 1503.0 | 1476.0 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has Claude Opus 4.7 at 94.2 and ERNIE 5.1 at 82.1, with Claude Opus 4.7 ahead by 12.1 points; Chatbot Arena has Claude Opus 4.7 at 1503 and ERNIE 5.1 at 1476, with Claude Opus 4.7 ahead by 27 points. The largest visible gap is 27 points on Chatbot Arena, 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 differs most on vision: Claude Opus 4.7, multimodal input: Claude Opus 4.7, reasoning mode: Claude Opus 4.7, structured outputs: Claude Opus 4.7, and code execution: Claude Opus 4.7. Both models share function calling and tool use, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Claude Opus 4.7 lists $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider, while ERNIE 5.1 lists $0.59/1M input and $2.65/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts ERNIE 5.1 lower by about $9.79 per million blended tokens. Availability is 7 providers versus 1, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose ERNIE 5.1 when provider fit and lower input-token cost 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 4.7 or ERNIE 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1m tokens, while ERNIE 5.1 supports 128k 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 4.7 or ERNIE 5.1?
ERNIE 5.1 is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output tokens. ERNIE 5.1 costs $0.59/1M input and $2.65/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or ERNIE 5.1 open source?
Claude Opus 4.7 is listed under Proprietary. ERNIE 5.1 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 4.7 or ERNIE 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Claude Opus 4.7 or ERNIE 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Claude Opus 4.7 and ERNIE 5.1?
Claude Opus 4.7 is available on Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, GCP Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, and OpenRouter. ERNIE 5.1 is available on Baidu Qianfan. 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.