Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.2

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 54.1 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.2 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 53 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

GPT-5.2 OpenAI

54.1

Rank #34 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 53 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-5.2 in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multimodal, where GPT-5.2 leads 51.3 to 41.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 83.6% for GPT-5.2.
  • GPT-5.2 is cheaper at $1.75 / $14 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index58.354.1
Released2026-04-142025-12-11
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M400K
Max output128K128K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.75
Output $ / M tokens$25$14
Results tracked6667

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-5.2: 51.6 (#37)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
SWE-bench Verified83.5%73.8%
LMArena WebDev15581416
GSO44.1%27.4%
WeirdML76.4%72.2%
LMArena Coding15181447
ALE-Bench1,3231,294
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—72.8%
SWE-bench Multilingual—66.7%
SciCode54.5%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
AlgoTune—2.05

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), GPT-5.2: 40.2 (#24)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench80.2%64.9%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%32.2%
LMArena Search12331207
Vending-Bench 210,9373,591
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—55.9%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
GDPval—49.7%
Remote Labor Index—2.5%
τ²-bench Airline—83%
τ²-bench Retail—81.6%
τ²-bench Telecom—89.7%
DeepResearch Bench—41.1%
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
METR Time Horizons—75.3%

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), GPT-5.2: 50.2 (#35)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI-275.8%52.9%
SimpleBench61.7%45.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%73.3%
NYT Connections (extended)39%83.6%
ARC-AGI-193.5%86.2%
Chess Puzzles30%49%
EBR-Bench19%23%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061445
Mystery Game Puzzles28%23%
DTBench94.7%90.9%
LMCA52.2%43.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25153.45
ForecastBench60.360.1
CritPt12%—
EnigmaEval—10.4%
Thematic Generalization72.8%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), GPT-5.2: 60.0 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%67.4%
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%31.7%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%72%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%96.1%
ProofBench54%15%
LMArena Math14991440
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%40.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%18.8%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), GPT-5.2: 59.3 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond90.2%91.4%
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%27.8%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%37.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%8.4%
LMArena Expert15211445

Multimodal GPT-5.2 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), GPT-5.2: 51.3 (#7)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision13161268
Furniture Assembly33.3%38.3%
LMArena Document14951405
VPCT—84%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), GPT-5.2: 53.4 (#67)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
LMArena Non-English14801425
LMArena Chinese15311460
LMArena French15031455
LMArena German14951448
LMArena Japanese14721420
LMArena Korean14641392
LMArena Russian14941440
LMArena Spanish14951433

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), GPT-5.2: 74.7 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following14981417

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#78)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
LMArena Longer Query15051428
CL-bench—18.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), GPT-5.2: 66.8 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7GPT-5.2
LMArena Text14901439
LMArena Creative Writing14861401
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141703
LMArena Multi-Turn15051458
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than GPT-5.2?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 54.1 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.2 costs 2.1× 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-5.2?

GPT-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.75 per million input tokens and $14 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.2 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 51.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.2 share?

53 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 has 67.

Related comparisons

Go deeper