GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 — 2026 Top-Tier AI Coding Benchmark

📊 Core Specs Comparison

Dimension	GPT-5.5	Claude Opus 4.7
Provider	OpenAI	Anthropic
Release Date	April 23, 2026	April 16, 2026
Context Window	1M tokens	1M tokens
Input Price	$5 / 1M tokens	$5 / 1M tokens
Output Price	$30 / 1M tokens	$25 / 1M tokens
Multimodal	✅ Text + Image	✅ Text + Image

🏆 Benchmark Head-to-Head (10 Shared Benchmarks)

According to LLM Stats, Opus 4.7 leads on 6 of 10 shared benchmarks while GPT-5.5 leads on 4.

Benchmark	GPT-5.5	Claude Opus 4.7	Leader
Terminal-Bench 2.0	82.7%	~65%	✅ GPT-5.5
BrowseComp	Higher	Lower	✅ GPT-5.5
OSWorld (Computer Use)	Higher	Lower	✅ GPT-5.5
CyberGym	Higher	Lower	✅ GPT-5.5
GPQA Diamond	Lower	Higher	✅ Opus 4.7
HLE (Human Last Exam)	Lower	Higher	✅ Opus 4.7
SWE-Bench Pro	55.2%	64.3%	✅ Opus 4.7
MCP Atlas	Lower	Higher	✅ Opus 4.7
FinanceAgent v1.1	Lower	Higher	✅ Opus 4.7
LMArena Coding	1350 (Thinking)	1350 (Thinking)	Equal

💡 Key Findings

1. Claude Opus 4.7 — The Programming Champion

Claude Opus 4.7 dominated complex programming tasks, achieving 64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro — a full 9 percentage points ahead of GPT-5.5. In LMArena Coding Arena blind tests, Opus 4.7 (Thinking) scored 1350, tying GPT-5.5 (Thinking) at the top. Opus 4.7 leads in GPQA, HLE, SWE-Bench Pro, MCP Atlas, and FinanceAgent — making it the go-to model for deep software engineering, research-grade reasoning, and financial analysis.

2. GPT-5.5 — Agentic Workflow Speedster

GPT-5.5 crushed agentic benchmarks: Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 82.7% vs Opus ~65%, and stronger OSWorld, BrowseComp, and CyberGym scores. It uses 72% fewer output tokens than Opus 4.7 on equivalent tasks — dramatically cutting output costs. GPT-5.5 is the choice for high-frequency agentic pipelines where throughput matters.

3. Token Efficiency — GPT-5.5 Wins

On the same coding tasks, GPT-5.5 generates 72% fewer output tokens. At $30/M output vs Opus $25/M, GPT-5.5 still often costs less per task when output volume is high.

4. Speed — Opus Leads on TTFT

Time-to-first-token favors Claude: Opus has ~0.5s TTFT vs GPT-5.5 ~3s baseline. Per-token throughput is comparable (~42 tps for Opus).

5. Pricing — Same Input, Opus Cheaper Output

Both charge $5 per 1M input tokens. Opus 4.7 charges $25/M output vs GPT-5.5 $30/M. Opus 4.7 also offers prompt caching (up to 90% savings) and batch processing (50% discount), plus a new tokenizer producing up to 35% more tokens per input.

🎯 Use Case Recommendations

Scenario	Recommended	Reason
Complex software engineering	Claude Opus 4.7	64.3% vs 55.2% SWE-Bench Pro
High-frequency agentic pipelines	GPT-5.5	82.7% Terminal-Bench, 72% fewer output tokens
Research & graduate-level reasoning	Claude Opus 4.7	Leads GPQA, HLE, FinanceAgent
Computer use / OS automation	GPT-5.5	Higher OSWorld and BrowseComp scores
Low latency first-token	Claude Opus 4.7	0.5s TTFT vs ~3s for GPT-5.5
Output-heavy long tasks	Claude Opus 4.7	$25/M output vs $30/M — 17% cheaper
Cost-sensitive at scale	DeepSeek V4 ⭐	$0.14–$2.17/M — 1/35th the cost

⭐ For massive agentic volumes, DeepSeek V4 at $0.14–$2.17/M tokens offers near-frontier performance at a fraction of the cost.

📝 Conclusion

In the GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 showdown, no single winner — they excel in different dimensions. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for complex programming and accuracy-critical tasks. Choose GPT-5.5 for agentic speed, token efficiency, and high-throughput workflows.

Data sourced May 2026 from LLM Stats, Artificial Analysis, and official model pages.