Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1-Codex
Updated October 21, 2026. 12 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.1-Codex are level for coding, 51.1 against 50.5 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide.
Pick GPT-5.1-Codex when output tokens cost 2.5x less, or when a solved task costs $0.892 against $2.95. Pick Claude Opus 4.7 when the context window is larger, 1M against 400K tokens, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 89
- GPT-5.1-Codex only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
No call
Level: 51.1 against 50.5, inside 2 points.
1 and 2 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 40.7 against 23.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a AA Agentic Index result, 38.6.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a GPQA Diamond result, 90.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a AIME result, 96.3%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a MMLU Pro result, 89.9%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a Design Arena: websites result, 1162.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 takes 1M tokens against 400K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.1-Codex
Claude Opus 4.7 $0.018, GPT-5.1-Codex $0.0063 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
GPT-5.1-Codex
Claude Opus 4.7 $2.95, GPT-5.1-Codex $0.892.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Opus 4.7 51.1 from 1 benchmark, GPT-5.1-Codex 50.5 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 27.8 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Claude Opus 4.7 71.0% against GPT-5.1-Codex 13.1%, 57.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Opus 4.7 $25.00 against GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
- Context window
- Claude Opus 4.7 takes 1M tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex 400K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Bars | GPT-5.1-Codex | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 5 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 10 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index51
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 66.0% | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | 1337 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| AA Coding Index | 73.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 85.1% | 85.5% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 71.0% | 13.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 43.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 68.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 84.9% | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.5% | 34.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | 57.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GSO-Bench | 44.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 1244.9 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1519 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1516 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1560 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1554 | 1346 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1577 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 40.7 | 23.7 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.8 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 38.6 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1018 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1086 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1191 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 23.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 88.6% | 83.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $10,937 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 85.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 91.4% | 86.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.3% | 25.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 93.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 41.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 28.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| EBR-bench | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1506 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1521 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1508 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1336 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1337 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 96.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 95.7 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 95.7% | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 97.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 70.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 31.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ProofBench | 54.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1498 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1509 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 89.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 85.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 68.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 75.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 70.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 54.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 86.0% | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1508 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1495 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1504 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1490 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1162 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1237 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1138 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1213 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1153 | Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 56.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 67.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| IFBench | 58.6% | 70.0% | GPT-5.1-Codex |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.7% | 69.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMCA | 52.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Furniture assembly | 33.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1490 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1498 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1486 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1496 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1480 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1531 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1495 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1474 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1464 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1503 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1494 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1494 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1489 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1505 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1505 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1492 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1474 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1322 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1371 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1327 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1309 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1278 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1326 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1-Codex | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-5.1-Codex costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5.1-Codex costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5.1-Codex costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 | OpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 16, 2026 | November 13, 2025 |
| Context window | 1M | 400K |
| Input $/Mtok | $5.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $25.00 | $10.00 |
| Coding index | 51.1 | 50.5 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $2.95 | $0.892 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than GPT-5.1-Codex for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.1-Codex are level for coding, 51.1 against 50.5 on the Vibe Coding Index, so price and context decide. Pick GPT-5.1-Codex when output tokens cost 2.5x less, or when a solved task costs $0.892 against $2.95. Pick Claude Opus 4.7 when the context window is larger, 1M against 400K tokens, or when what matters is LMArena WebDev or Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.1-Codex?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 and $10.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Claude Opus 4.7 costs $2.95 and GPT-5.1-Codex $0.892.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.1-Codex?
Claude Opus 4.7, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1-Codex comparison based on?
12 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Opus 4.7's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.1-Codex's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.