Claude Opus 4.7 is the premium Anthropic pick — it leads SWE-Bench Pro at 64.3% and has higher recommendation scores across the board. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 79.6% on the standard SWE-bench Verified benchmark and is ~40% cheaper ($3 vs $5/1M input, $15 vs $25/1M output). Both share a 1M token context window. For high-stakes coding agents, long complex tasks, and situations where output quality is non-negotiable, Opus 4.7 justifies the premium. For daily development, writing, and research, Sonnet 4.6 delivers 90% of the value at 60% of the cost.
AnthropicPremium
Claude Opus 4.7
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
VS
AnthropicPremium
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
At a glance
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Input cost / 1M tokens
$$5.00/1M
$$3.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$$25.00/1M
$$15.00/1M
Context window
1M tokens
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
Balanced
Price tier
Premium
Premium
Benchmarks
SWE-bench (coding)
87.6%
79.6%
Arena Elo
1,800
1,340
MMLU
92%
88.3%
How they compare
Which model wins for each use case — and why.
Coding CeilingClaude Opus 4.7 wins
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on SWE-Bench Pro (64.3%) — the hardest public coding benchmark. For autonomous PR review and complex multi-file engineering, Opus has the higher ceiling.
Everyday CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 79.6% on SWE-bench Verified and is the default in Cursor and Windsurf. For daily coding, its quality gap from Opus is minimal.
WritingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads the writing category (recommendation score 98) and consistently produces more polished prose for content and editorial work.
PriceClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs Opus 4.7's $5/$25. Sonnet is 40% cheaper on input and output — significant at scale.
High-Stakes WorkClaude Opus 4.7 wins
For mission-critical tasks where errors are expensive — complex architectural decisions, high-value engineering, senior-level analysis — Opus 4.7 justifies the premium.
Which should you pick?
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if…
You're running coding agents that need to autonomously solve complex multi-file engineering problems
The cost of a wrong output is high — you'd rather pay more and get it right
You need the highest current public SWE-bench Pro score from Anthropic
Long-context, high-complexity reasoning across large codebases is your primary task
Against Claude Sonnet 4.6 it costs about 40% more per token.
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.
Input
$5.00/1M
Output
$25.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
What people actually use it for
Delegating difficult multi-file engineering work that needs careful verification
Running premium coding agents and autonomous PR review workflows
Reading large codebases, research corpora, or design references with 1M context
Where it wins
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
Where it falls down
Premium pricing is expensive for high-volume workloads
GPT-5.5 has stronger OpenAI ecosystem fit and faster Codex availability for some teams
Skip it if
You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.
Our verdict
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.
Against Claude Opus 4.7 it costs about 40% less per token and answers faster.
The default model powering Cursor and Windsurf. 79.6% SWE-bench, 1M context window, and best-in-tier writing quality — all at $3/1M input.
Input
$3.00/1M
Output
$15.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Balanced
What people actually use it for
Daily coding in Cursor — debugging, refactoring, and feature implementation
Drafting polished client reports, strategy memos, and long-form editorial content
Answering research questions with up to 1M tokens of document context
Where it wins
Strong coding quality with 1M context at $3/1M input
Default model in Cursor and Windsurf, the two most popular AI coding editors
Best writing quality in its price tier — tone, long-form clarity, editorial polish
Where it falls down
Claude Opus 4.7 has a higher current premium coding ceiling
GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.4 are better picks when OpenAI computer-use workflows are the priority
Skip it if
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
Our verdict
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
Opus 4.7 has the higher coding ceiling and is better for complex autonomous tasks. Sonnet 4.6 is better for everyday use — it's 40% cheaper with excellent performance across coding, writing, and research.
Is it worth paying for Claude Opus 4.7 over Sonnet 4.6?
Only if you're running high-stakes coding agents or complex autonomous workflows where the quality ceiling matters. For most developers and content teams, Sonnet 4.6 is the smarter choice.
How much more expensive is Claude Opus 4.7?
Opus 4.7 costs $5/$25 per 1M tokens vs Sonnet 4.6's $3/$15. That's 67% more expensive on input and 67% more on output. At 10M tokens/month, you'd pay $150 more with Opus.
Do both models have the same context window?
Yes — both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 support a 1M token context window. Context length is not the differentiator between them.