Claude 4.7 Opus vs GPT-5
Anthropic's Claude 4.7 Opus versus OpenAI GPT-5: reasoning benchmarks, context window, agentic coding, multimodal capabilities, and pricing comparison.
Anthropic's most capable model for coding and knowledge work
OpenAI's most capable model: built for the hardest end-to-end tasks
As of September 7, 2026, both models are barely a week old — it's too early to declare a winner. Pricing is identical ($10/$50 per MTok), and Fable 5.1's cache-hit price is 4x cheaper, but Artificial Analysis's per-task cost measurement puts Fable at $6.12 and Astra at $2.57 — unit price and actual bill aren't the same thing. Fable's knowledge cutoff is about 2 months fresher; the benchmarks are mixed: Fable leads on the Intelligence and Coding Agent Index, Astra leads on Terminal-Bench 4.0. Distribution is broad for both; don't choose without measuring against your own workload.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-6 Astra |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Ease of Learning | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Ecosystem | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Community | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Job Market | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Future-Proof | 8/10 | 8/10 |
# Claude Code CLI — an agentic coding session with Fable 5.1
# 1) Install (npm)
npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code
# 2) Pin Fable 5.1 explicitly (aliases can resolve differently depending on environment)
claude --model 'claude-fable-5-1[1m]' --effort high
# 3) Programmatic call via the API (Python)
import anthropic
client = anthropic.Anthropic()
response = client.messages.create(
model="claude-fable-5-1",
max_tokens=4096,
system=[{"type": "text", "text": "You are a senior backend engineer.", "cache_control": {"type": "ephemeral"}}],
messages=[
{"role": "user", "content": "Find the N+1 query risk in this Prisma schema."}
]
)
print(response.content[0].text)
# 4) Cache economics: a 5-minute cache write costs $12.50/MTok,
# a cache-hit costs only $0.25/MTok (0.025x multiplier — 0.1x on other models)# Codex CLI — an agentic coding session with GPT-6 Astra
# 1) Install and update (0.153.4+ makes Astra the bundled default)
npm install -g @openai/codex
codex --version # must be >= 0.153.4
# 2) Pinning the model explicitly (~/.codex/config.toml — both are top-level keys)
# model = "gpt-6-astra"
# model_reasoning_effort = "high"
codex exec "Find and fix the race condition in this Express route"
# 3) Programmatic call via the API (Python)
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI()
response = client.responses.create(
model="gpt-6-astra",
reasoning={"effort": "high"},
input="Analyze the N+1 risk in this SQL query."
)
print(response.output_text)
# 4) Raising effort without breaking cache (configuration_update)
# add {"type": "configuration_update", "reasoning": {"effort": "xhigh"}} to the input itemAs of September 7, 2026, both models are barely a week old — it's too early to declare a winner. Pricing is identical ($10/$50 per MTok), and Fable 5.1's cache-hit price is 4x cheaper, but Artificial Analysis's per-task cost measurement puts Fable at $6.12 and Astra at $2.57 — unit price and actual bill aren't the same thing. Fable's knowledge cutoff is about 2 months fresher; the benchmarks are mixed: Fable leads on the Intelligence and Coding Agent Index, Astra leads on Terminal-Bench 4.0. Distribution is broad for both; don't choose without measuring against your own workload.
Get Free ConsultationThere's no clear winner. On the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, Fable 5.1 leads 70-67, and on the Intelligence Index (v4.2) 57-55; but on Terminal-Bench 4.0, Astra leads with 57.9% versus Fable 5.1's 55.8% — this second figure is confirmed verbatim in Anthropic's own launch table. The choice depends on your workload: Fable has a slight edge in general agentic coding, while Astra is slightly ahead on long, multi-step terminal work.