Objective comparison based on public benchmarks updated weekly: Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond, Chatbot Arena ELO, pricing and speed.
Overall winner (2026)
Claude Opus 4.7
4 of 7 criteria won
Anthropic
Intelligence Index
57.3
Coding Index
53.1
4 criteria won
View full profile →| Critério | GPT-4o | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Chatbot Arena ELO | — | — |
| Intelligence Index (AA) | 17.3 | 57.3 ✓ |
| Coding Index (AA) | 16.7 | 53.1 ✓ |
| GPQA Diamond | 54.0% | 91.0% ✓ |
| Input price ($/1M tok) | $2.50 ✓ | $6.25 |
| Output price ($/1M tok) | $10.00 ✓ | $25.00 |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 1.0M tokens ✓ |
| Speed (tokens/s) | 160 tok/s ✓ | 49 tok/s |
✓ = winner in this criterion • Source: Artificial Analysis, LMArena, official APIs • Updated weekly
Choosing between GPT-4o and Claude Opus 4.7 depends on your use case, budget and technical requirements. Below, a practical guide based on benchmark data and each model's specifications.
OpenAI · Multimodal
Anthropic · Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.7 wins in 4 of 7 criteria analyzed. Check the full table to choose based on your use case.
Data is aggregated from Artificial Analysis (Intelligence Index, Coding Index) and Chatbot Arena/LMArena (ELO). Pricing and specs come from official APIs. Updated weekly.
The Intelligence Index is an aggregate score from Artificial Analysis that combines multiple academic benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, LiveBench, etc.) into a single rating. The higher the score, the more capable the model is at reasoning tasks.
Yes. GPT-4o costs $2.5/1M input tokens, while Claude Opus 4.7 costs $6.25/1M tokens — 150% more expensive. For high-volume projects, GPT-4o represents significant savings. Total cost also depends on output pricing and your application's usage pattern.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window: 1.0M tokens vs 128K tokens. For long document analysis, extensive transcripts or full codebases, the larger context window is a decisive criterion.