Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs gpt-oss-120b

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 142× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 35 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

gpt-oss-120b OpenAI

36.3

Rank #217 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and gpt-oss-120b in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 47.9 to 12.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 80.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 18.7% for gpt-oss-120b.
  • gpt-oss-120b is cheaper at $0.037 / $0.17 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • gpt-oss-120b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index58.336.3
Released2026-04-142025-08-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K41K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.037
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.17
Results tracked6648

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-oss-120b: 33.5 (#256)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
SciCode54.5%36%
WeirdML76.4%48.2%
LMArena Coding15181380
ALE-Bench1,323575.62
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—26%
Aider Polyglot—41.8%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
AlgoTune—1.41

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), gpt-oss-120b: 12.2 (#153)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
Terminal-Bench80.2%18.7%
APEX-Agents49.2%4.4%
Vending-Bench 210,937-21.53
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
METR Time Horizons—56.6%

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), gpt-oss-120b: 20.0 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
SimpleBench61.7%22.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%58.6%
CritPt12%1.1%
Chess Puzzles30%20%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061364
Mystery Game Puzzles28%2%
DTBench94.7%76.3%
LMCA52.2%22.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25139.93
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Surface Evolver Bench—25%
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), gpt-oss-120b: 52.5 (#50)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%88.9%
LMArena Math14991389
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—68.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), gpt-oss-120b: 42.4 (#96)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
GPQA Diamond90.2%75.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%14.2%
LMArena Expert15211356
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—79.5%
Confabulations—15.7%
GPQA (HELM)—68.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), gpt-oss-120b: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), gpt-oss-120b: 48.0 (#147)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
LMArena Non-English14801351
LMArena Chinese15311385
LMArena French15031369
LMArena German14951353
LMArena Japanese14721331
LMArena Korean14641282
LMArena Russian14941343
LMArena Spanish14951389

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), gpt-oss-120b: 69.3 (#173)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
LMArena Instruction Following14981318
IFEval—83.6%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), gpt-oss-120b: 31.4 (#278)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
LMArena Longer Query15051319
Fiction.LiveBench—44.4%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), gpt-oss-120b: 46.5 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7gpt-oss-120b
LMArena Text14901365
LMArena Creative Writing14861275
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914961
LMArena Multi-Turn15051340
Short-Story Creative Writing—77.1%
WildBench—84.5%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than gpt-oss-120b?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index. gpt-oss-120b costs 142× 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-oss-120b?

gpt-oss-120b is cheaper. It lists at $0.037 per million input tokens and $0.17 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or gpt-oss-120b better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and gpt-oss-120b share?

35 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and gpt-oss-120b has 48.

Related comparisons

Go deeper