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 For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.8 at the same price.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 safest Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-5.1-Codex-Max handles the same job for about 63% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on coding with a score of 99 vs 96 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the safer default: it is built for highest-ceiling coding, agentic workflows, and deep research, which covers most of what people bring to this comparison.
Claude Opus 4.6 earns its place when your work is mostly agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning, even though it loses the overall count here.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Claude Opus 4.7 for highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, Claude Opus 4.6 for agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6 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Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.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 Opus 4.6 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.
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 Opus 4.6Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 99 | 94 | 96 |
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 Opus 4.6, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6: 96/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
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 fastest model in this shortlist for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6. Pick it when turnaround is what your readers or users notice.
Anthropic's previous Opus flagship for high-stakes coding, reasoning, and deep research before Opus 4.7.
You want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration.
Still strong for high-stakes engineering work, but Opus 4.7 is the newer premium coding leader. For most teams, Sonnet 4.6 remains the smarter lower-cost default.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 is the better pick when your work is mostly agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 4.7 is aimed at highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, Claude Opus 4.6 at agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning.
Both models are similarly priced at $5/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
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 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.6 have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
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 Opus 4.6 instead.
Premium pricing ($15/$75) makes it expensive for high-volume usage. Sonnet 4.6 is only 1.2 points behind on SWE-bench at 5× lower cost. Avoid it if you want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration. Against Claude Opus 4.7 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (96 vs 99).
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 Opus 4.6 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out). The gap is small enough that price should not decide this one. 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 Opus 4.6 handling agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning. Since Claude Opus 4.7 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Claude Opus 4.6 covers a capability you specifically need.