Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-4.1 nano

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 10 categories and GPT-4.1 nano in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 8.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 93.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 0% for GPT-4.1 nano.
  • GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index58.327.9
Released2026-04-142025-04-14
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.40
Results tracked6638

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
SciCode54.5%25.9%
WeirdML76.4%19%
LMArena Coding15181306
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
Aider Polyglot—8.9%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—33%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
ARC-AGI-275.8%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%33.3%
ARC-AGI-193.5%0%
CritPt12%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061286
DTBench94.7%52.5%
LMCA52.2%5.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25129.62
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%28.9%
LMArena Math14991274
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—36.7%
MATH Level 5—70%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
GPQA Diamond90.2%48.9%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%6%
LMArena Expert15211272
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
MMLU-Pro—55%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)—50.7%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
LMArena Vision13161063
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
LMArena Non-English14801260
LMArena Chinese15311270
LMArena German14951288
LMArena Japanese14721198
LMArena Russian14941261
LMArena French1503—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
LMArena Instruction Following14981267
IFEval—84.3%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
LMArena Longer Query15051283
Fiction.LiveBench—25%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4.1 nano
LMArena Text14901285
LMArena Creative Writing14861260
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914946
LMArena Multi-Turn15051277
WildBench—81.2%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than GPT-4.1 nano?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 57× 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 Opus 4.7 or GPT-4.1 nano?

GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-4.1 nano better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-4.1 nano share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 nano has 38.

Related comparisons

Go deeper