Both are Anthropic models. Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Claude Sonnet 4.5 when its lower price or a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.
Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 are both Anthropic models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.
Key differences
Price: Claude Sonnet 4.5 is about 1.7× cheaper on input ($3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $5/$25 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
Context window: Claude Opus 4.7 holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Coding: Claude Opus 4.7 leads SWE-Bench Verified by 10.4 points (87.6% vs 77.2%) — a real edge on hard, real-world software tasks.
Recency: Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer model by about 7 months (released April 16, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Anthropic (US)
Released
April 16, 2026
September 29, 2025
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
200K (~300 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
87.6%
77.2%
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — It scores 87.6% on SWE-Bench Verified against Claude Sonnet 4.5's 77.2% — a 10.4-point edge on real repository work.
Precise instruction following: Claude Opus 4.7 — The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability — and it leads SWE-Bench Verified 87.6% to 77.2%.
Task budgets and effort tiers: Claude Opus 4.7 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 is comparatively weak here — missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded — and it runs cheaper at $3/$15 per 1M tokens.
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch): Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Claude Opus 4.7 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; Claude Opus 4.7 does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — At $3/$15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Claude Opus 4.7 — Its 1M window is about 5× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — At $3/$15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Claude Opus 4.7 — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — That is its strongest area.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 16, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Because Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 come from the same lab (Anthropic), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Claude Opus 4.7 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to Claude Opus 4.7 and drop down only with a concrete reason.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5 better for coding?
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% and Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores 77.2% — Claude Opus 4.7 has the measurable edge.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper — $5/$25 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.7× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Should I upgrade from Claude Sonnet 4.5 to Claude Opus 4.7?
Since both are Anthropic models, the newer one (Claude Opus 4.7) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 16, 2026, about 7 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5
Anthropic · US | Anthropic · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Both are Anthropic models. Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Claude Sonnet 4.5 when its lower price or a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.
Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 are both Anthropic models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Claude Sonnet 4.5 is about 1.7× cheaper on input ($3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $5/$25 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
▸Context window: Claude Opus 4.7 holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Coding: Claude Opus 4.7 leads SWE-Bench Verified by 10.4 points (87.6% vs 77.2%) — a real edge on hard, real-world software tasks.
▸Recency: Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer model by about 7 months (released April 16, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Anthropic (US)
Released
April 16, 2026
September 29, 2025
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
200K (~300 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
87.6%
77.2%
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows
Claude Opus 4.7
It scores 87.6% on SWE-Bench Verified against Claude Sonnet 4.5's 77.2% — a 10.4-point edge on real repository work.
Precise instruction following
Claude Opus 4.7
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability — and it leads SWE-Bench Verified 87.6% to 77.2%.
Task budgets and effort tiers
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is comparatively weak here — missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
Claude Sonnet 4.5
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded — and it runs cheaper at $3/$15 per 1M tokens.
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Claude Opus 4.7 does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; Claude Opus 4.7 does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Claude Sonnet 4.5
At $3/$15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Claude Opus 4.7
Its 1M window is about 5× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
At $3/$15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Claude Opus 4.7
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows
→ Claude Opus 4.7
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
That is its strongest area.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 16, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Because Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 come from the same lab (Anthropic), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Claude Opus 4.7 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to Claude Opus 4.7 and drop down only with a concrete reason.
Want both Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5 better for coding?
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% and Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores 77.2% — Claude Opus 4.7 has the measurable edge.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper — $5/$25 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.7× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Should I upgrade from Claude Sonnet 4.5 to Claude Opus 4.7?
Since both are Anthropic models, the newer one (Claude Opus 4.7) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 16, 2026, about 7 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.