Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Phi-4

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Phi-4 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 13.8% for Phi-4.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Phi-4 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Phi-4
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index58.331.2
Released2026-04-142024-12-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.07
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.14
Results tracked6637

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), Phi-4: 34.4 (#239)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Coding15181231
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.5%
LiveBench Coding—30.7%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—55.4%
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Phi-4: 22.8 (#128)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.8%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
BALROG—11.6%
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), Phi-4: 17.7 (#291)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
Chess Puzzles30%1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061220
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25130.42
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LiveBench Reasoning—47.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—45.2%
LMCA52.2%—
ForecastBench60.3—
LiveBench—41.6%

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Phi-4: 20.8 (#285)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%13.8%
LMArena Math14991246
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
LiveBench Math—42%
MATH Level 5—64.9%
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), Phi-4: 32.6 (#209)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
GPQA Diamond90.2%56.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%3.7%
LMArena Expert15211203
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Confabulations—29.4%
MMLU—84.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Phi-4: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Phi-4: 37.2 (#237)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Non-English14801197
LMArena Chinese15311212
LMArena French15031224
LMArena German14951222
LMArena Japanese14721158
LMArena Korean14641151
LMArena Russian14941209
LMArena Spanish14951234

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Phi-4: 60.4 (#251)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Instruction Following14981201
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.4%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Phi-4: 36.9 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Longer Query15051217

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Phi-4: 40.5 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-4
LMArena Text14901217
LMArena Creative Writing14861182
LMArena Multi-Turn15051206
Short-Story Creative Writing—62.6%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LiveBench Language—25.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Phi-4?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 114× 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 Phi-4?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Phi-4 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Phi-4 share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper