Claude Opus 4.7: Official Coding, Vision, and Agent Benchmarks

One-sentence takeaway

The official release positions Opus 4.7 as an upgrade over 4.6 for difficult software engineering, long-horizon Agents, and high-resolution vision, but its BrowseComp regression and higher token usage show that it is not an unconditional replacement for every task.

Use cases

• Good for: Complex multilingual codebases, tool orchestration, computer use, financial and specialized-knowledge work, and high-resolution chart and interface understanding.

• Not good for: Agents focused on intensive web research and BrowseComp-like capabilities; low-cost, short tasks should not default to xhigh/max either.

• Applicable model version: claude-opus-4-7, the official generally available version.

• Applicable clients, Agents, or APIs: Claude products, Anthropic API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, and Microsoft Foundry.

• Recommended reasoning levels and parameters: Anthropic recommends starting coding/Agent work at high or xhigh; the API defaults to high; effort, token budget, and tool harness should be recorded for the same task.

Test environment, inputs, and configuration

• Official models: Claude Opus 4.7, compared with Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, and others; some charts also include Claude Mythos Preview.

• Tasks/benchmarks: SWE-bench Verified, SWE-bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.0, MCP-Atlas, Finance Agent v1.1, OSWorld-Verified, BrowseComp, GPQA Diamond, HLE, CharXiv, and MMMLU.

• Inputs and harness: The official release page does not disclose the complete input for each question, tool schemas, number of repetitions, or the full harness, so it cannot be reconstructed from the release page alone.

• Vision configuration: Opus 4.7 supports images with a longest edge of 2,576 pixels and approximately 3.75MP; Anthropic describes this as more than three times the resolution of previous models.

Results data

The table below lists the key figures (percentages) reported on the official release page and in the system card:

Pricing remains $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Anthropic also announced API task budgets beta, Claude Code /ultrareview, and Max auto mode as accompanying capabilities.

Conclusion

Compared with 4.6, 4.7 delivers clear gains in coding, tool use, computer use, and chart understanding; the improvements on SWE-bench Pro, MCP-Atlas, and CharXiv especially support its selection for long-horizon engineering and Agent work. BrowseComp fell from 83.7 to 79.3, indicating that research-oriented web Agents should be evaluated separately.

Limitations

• The figures were provided by Anthropic. The official release page does not provide complete questions, raw outputs, repeat statistics, or confidence intervals, so they are not equivalent to an independently reproduced experiment.

• Tools, harnesses, effort, and context configurations may differ across benchmarks; scores across models do not guarantee the same performance from a production Agent.

• Early partner evaluations (such as internal coding benchmarks, CursorBench, and Finance/Computer-use cases) reflect selective disclosure by partners or Anthropic and cannot replace public datasets.

• An updated tokenizer and higher effort may increase actual token usage; unchanged pricing does not mean that the cost of every task remains unchanged.

Reproduction steps

1. Select repository issues, tool calls, screenshots/charts, and web-research samples that match the business use case, and fix the model version and effort.

2. Record input tokens, output tokens, number of tool calls, timeouts, failure types, final test results, and the amount of manual revision.

3. Use the same harness, permissions, context budget, and success criteria for 4.6 and 4.7, with multiple repetitions at minimum.

4. Report coding, tools, vision, and web research results separately; do not let an overall average hide regressions such as the one on BrowseComp.

5. Decide whether to migrate based jointly on cost, latency, and task completion, and retune prompts that depend on the old model's more permissive interpretation.

Original evidence and data

The official source page explicitly gives the 4.7 release, the unchanged $5/$25 pricing, xhigh effort, the vision resolution limit, and the benchmarks above; it also emphasizes that 4.7's cybersecurity capabilities are below those of the restricted Mythos Preview and that safeguards were added to automatically detect and block high-risk cybersecurity requests.

Source excerpt or observation (compliance short quote only)

Anthropic summarizes 4.7 as “a notable improvement ... in advanced software engineering,” while the same page also says it is “less broadly capable” than Mythos Preview; its boundaries should be recorded by task type.