| Signal | Claude Opus 4.7 | Delta | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 80 | -2 | |
Pricing | 75 | -10 | |
Context window size | 95 | -- | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
81.4
current score
Claude Sonnet 4.6
right now
85.2
current score
Anthropic
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6 saves you $700.00/month
That's $8400.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4.7 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 81 | 85 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Rank | #32 | #25 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Quality Rank | #32 | #25 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Adoption Rank | #32 | #25 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 1000K | -- |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $3.00/$15.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Benchmarks | 80 | 82 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Pricing | 75 | 85 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Context window size | 95 | 95 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 85 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 81/100 (rank #32), placing it in the top 89% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 85/100 (rank #25), placing it in the top 92% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 4-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 offers 40% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $270.00/month with Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs $450.00/month with Claude Opus 4.7 - a $180.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Claude Sonnet 4.6 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($15.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (85/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has a moderate advantage with a 3.799999999999997-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Claude Opus 4.7 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.7
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Claude Sonnet 4.6
40% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.7
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.7
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.7
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6 saves you $15.60/month
That's 40% cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Apr 16, 2026 | Feb 17, 2026 |
The pricing differential suggests Anthropic is segmenting by use case intensity rather than raw coding performance. At $25/M output tokens vs $15/M, Opus 4.7 targets production workloads where the 1-rank difference (#7 vs #6) might translate to subtle quality improvements in complex codegen tasks, while Sonnet 4.6 optimizes for development iterations where the 40% cost savings compound quickly.
The identical context windows and capability sets (Vision, Function Calling, JSON Mode) make this purely a cost-quality tradeoff within Anthropic's coding tier. Opus 4.7's $5/M input pricing (vs $3/M for Sonnet) suggests it may handle edge cases or maintain consistency better on complex refactoring tasks spanning hundreds of files, though the identical 66/100 scores indicate these gains are marginal.
Among 320 models, both sitting at 66/100 with a 1-position rank gap represents statistical noise rather than meaningful performance difference. The real distinction lies in Anthropic's internal benchmarking: Sonnet 4.6 achieving rank #6 at 60% of Opus's output cost ($15/M vs $25/M) makes it the clear winner for teams optimizing cost per generated line of code.
With identical capabilities and scores, migration risk is minimal - both support the same modalities (text+image->text) and features (Streaming, Reasoning, Web Search). A team processing 10M output tokens monthly would save $100/month switching to Sonnet 4.6's $15/M pricing, making it compelling unless you've specifically validated that Opus 4.7's subtle quality differences justify the 67% premium.
The version numbering suggests Opus 4.7 incorporates newer training data or architectural refinements that don't translate to higher benchmark scores but may improve reliability or instruction following. At $2/M higher input cost and $10/M higher output cost than Sonnet 4.6, Opus likely targets enterprise customers who value any marginal improvement in code correctness over the 1.7x price multiple.