Claude Opus 4.7 wins on price ($5 vs $15/1M input). Claude Opus 4.6 wins on coding (99 vs 96). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.8 at the same price.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 shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 99 for Claude Opus 4.6.
Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper at $5/1M input tokens vs $15/1M for Claude Opus 4.6.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for coding and research — highest-ceiling coding.
Choose Claude Opus 4.6 when agentic coding.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
Anthropic / Premium / Apr 26, 2026
Best premium model for coding agents and high-stakes engineering work.
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.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Best premium model for coding agents and high-stakes engineering work.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.
64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro, ahead of GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.4 in current public comparisons
1M context window for large codebases and document-heavy workflows
Strong vision and agentic consistency improvements over Opus 4.6
Premium pricing is expensive for high-volume workloads
GPT-5.5 has stronger OpenAI ecosystem fit and faster Codex availability for some teams
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 4.7 wins on more categories — coding, research, long context. Claude Opus 4.6 is the better pick when agentic coding. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
Claude Opus 4.7 is cheaper at $5/1M input and $25/1M output. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $15/1M input and $75/1M output.
Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.6 have the same 1M context window.
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding with a score of 99 vs Claude Opus 4.7's 96. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.
Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.6 have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate.
