Claude Opus 4.7 wins on coding (96 vs 52) and writing quality and context window (1M vs 200K). Claude 4 Haiku wins on price ($0.8 vs $5/1M input). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.8 at the same price.
The safest Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude 4 Haiku handles the same job for about 84% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Claude 4 Haiku is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on coding with a score of 96 vs 52 for Claude 4 Haiku.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window: 1M vs 200K for Claude 4 Haiku.
Claude 4 Haiku is cheaper at $0.8/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for Claude Opus 4.7.
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for highest-ceiling coding, agentic workflows, and deep research. Its coding and research scores are what carry the recommendation here.
Claude 4 Haiku earns its place when your work is mostly fast budget writing and support automation, even though it loses the overall count here.
Claude 4 Haiku is the more cost-efficient option at $0.8/1M input — Claude Opus 4.7 costs 6x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / May 27, 2026
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.
Where the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
Best low-cost writing option for fast-moving content teams.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 96 | 93 | 95 |
| Claude 4 HaikuAnthropic | $0.80/1M | $4.00/1M | $16 | 200k tokens | Very fast | 52 | 85 | 62 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Our pick for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku. It scores 96/100 on the coding axis we weight this page by, and nothing else in this shortlist matches it on output quality.
Anthropic's previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Opus 4.8. Still the second-best coding model publicly available at the same $5/$25 price.
You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.
Superseded by Opus 4.8 (May 27, 2026) which scores 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro vs 64.3% here — at the same price. For existing pinned integrations Opus 4.7 still works well, but new deployments should use Opus 4.8.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.7 page.
The value option for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku: about 84% less per token than Claude Opus 4.7, at 52/100 on coding. Worth starting here and moving up only if the output disappoints.
Fast and affordable Anthropic option that keeps writing quality surprisingly high for the price.
Cost is your only concern — Gemini 3.1 Flash offers similar value with a larger context window.
The best pick when you want Anthropic quality at a budget price point — especially for writing-heavy automations.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude 4 Haiku page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude 4 Haiku pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 4.7 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Claude 4 Haiku is the better pick when your work is mostly fast budget writing and support automation. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 4.7 is aimed at highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, Claude 4 Haiku at fast budget writing and support automation.
Claude 4 Haiku is cheaper at $0.8/1M input and $4/1M output. Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs Claude 4 Haiku's 200K. For large document analysis, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding with a score of 96 vs Claude 4 Haiku's 52 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Claude 4 Haiku is faster with a very fast speed rating (score: 5) vs Claude Opus 4.7's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 4.7 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Opus 4.8 launched at the same $5/$25 price with 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro and parallel subagents. No reason to prefer Opus 4.7 for new integrations — use Opus 4.8 instead. Avoid it if you are starting a new integration — Opus 4.8 is strictly better at the same price. That is the main case for looking at Claude 4 Haiku instead.
Less strong on deep reasoning and coding than larger models. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is now cheaper with a larger context window. Avoid it if cost is your only concern — Gemini 3.1 Flash offers similar value with a larger context window. Against Claude Opus 4.7 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (96 vs 52).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Opus 4.7 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out); Claude 4 Haiku runs $16.00 (at $0.8/1M in and $4/1M out). That is a $84.00/month difference — Claude 4 Haiku is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Opus 4.7 for highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, with Claude 4 Haiku handling fast budget writing and support automation. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Claude 4 Haiku at $0.8/1M and reserving Claude Opus 4.7 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.