Model comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 49.5 on the Noometry Index. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher in 2 categories and Claude Opus 4.7 in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 35.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 23.8% for Claude Haiku 5.5 and 51.7% for Claude Opus 4.7.
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Noometry Index | 49.5 | 58.3 |
| Released | 2026-10-07 | 2026-04-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $5 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $25 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 66 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 49.2 (#50), Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1587 | 1558 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 83.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 38.5% |
| SciCode | — | 54.5% |
| GSO | — | 44.1% |
| WeirdML | — | 76.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1518 |
| MirrorCode | — | 31.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,323 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 80.2% |
| APEX-Agents | — | 49.2% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 18.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 40.2% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 28.6% |
| ExploitBench | — | 26.5% |
| GBAEval | — | 43.8% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 21% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1233 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 10,937 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 35.2 (#69), Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 65.7% | 39% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 30% | 28% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 75.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 61.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 80.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 93.5% |
| CritPt | — | 12% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 30% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 72.8% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1506 |
| DTBench | — | 94.7% |
| LMCA | — | 52.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.25 |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.3 |
Math Claude Haiku 5.5 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 73.6 (#18), Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 75.1% | 70.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46.3% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 97.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 73.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 54% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 22.9% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 50.8 (#70), Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.6% | 90.2% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 23.8% | 51.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 36.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1521 |
Multimodal Claude Haiku 5.5 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 43.7 (#21), Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 47.5% | 33.3% |
| LMArena Vision | — | 1316 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 24.5% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1495 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1480 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1531 |
| LMArena French | — | 1503 |
| LMArena German | — | 1495 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1472 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1464 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1494 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1495 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1498 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1505 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1490 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1486 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1914 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1505 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 better than Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 49.5 on the Noometry Index. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Claude Opus 4.7?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 or Claude Opus 4.7 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 49.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Haiku 5.5 has 9 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 4.7 has 66.