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.
A step change at the Opus tier: the most durable model for long-running agentic tasks
Quality close to Opus 4.8, 2.5x cheaper — the default model for everyday workflows
There's no clean single-model winner, but there is a clear rule: give specification-clear complex code, migrations, and hard verification work to Opus 5; leave discovery, file scanning, translation, and high-volume mechanical work to Sonnet 5. Don't reverse the order, either — Anthropic's official recommendation is to adjust effort before switching models. Try Sonnet 5 at high effort first; upgrade to Opus 5 only if the result isn't reliable or the task needs multi-turn self-verification.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 10/10 | 8/10 |
| Ease of Learning | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Ecosystem | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Community | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Job Market | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Future-Proof | 9/10 | 8/10 |
// TypeScript — a specification-clear, hard verification task with Opus 5
import Anthropic from "@anthropic-ai/sdk";
const client = new Anthropic({ apiKey: process.env.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY });
async function runMigrationReview(diff: string) {
const response = await client.messages.create({
model: "claude-opus-5",
max_tokens: 4096,
// Thinking is already on in Opus 5; you steer its depth via
// `output_config.effort` — "high" is the default, written explicitly here.
output_config: { effort: "high" },
messages: [
{
role: "user",
content: `Review this Prisma migration diff adversarially:
try to disprove it on data-loss risk, irreversible
steps, and missing rollback scenarios.\n\n${diff}`,
},
],
});
return response.content;
}
// In the Claude Code CLI, write the model explicitly when delegating:
// Agent({ prompt: "...", model: "claude-opus-5" })// TypeScript — high-volume discovery/mechanical work with Sonnet 5
import Anthropic from "@anthropic-ai/sdk";
const client = new Anthropic({ apiKey: process.env.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY });
async function translateBatch(entries: string[]) {
// For "clear finish-line" work like translation/i18n and file scanning,
// Sonnet 5 delivers quality close to Opus 4.8 at 2.5x lower cost.
const results = await Promise.all(
entries.map((text) =>
client.messages.create({
model: "claude-sonnet-5",
max_tokens: 1024,
// Low effort = fewer tokens, faster response.
output_config: { effort: "low" },
messages: [
{
role: "user",
content: `Translate this i18n key from TR to EN, preserve the tone:\n${text}`,
},
],
})
)
);
return results.map((r) => r.content);
}
// In the Claude Code CLI, a subagent with no model specified inherits
// the main session's model — write the model explicitly for discovery work:
// Agent({ prompt: "scan the src/ directory", model: "claude-sonnet-5" })There's no clean single-model winner, but there is a clear rule: give specification-clear complex code, migrations, and hard verification work to Opus 5; leave discovery, file scanning, translation, and high-volume mechanical work to Sonnet 5. Don't reverse the order, either — Anthropic's official recommendation is to adjust effort before switching models. Try Sonnet 5 at high effort first; upgrade to Opus 5 only if the result isn't reliable or the task needs multi-turn self-verification.
Get Free ConsultationUse Opus 5 for specification-clear, complex, long-running agentic tasks (multi-file refactors, migrations, hard verification); use Sonnet 5 for discovery, file scanning, translation, mechanical edits, and high-volume routine work. Anthropic's official positioning backs this split: Opus 5 stands out for long-agent durability, while Sonnet 5 offers a speed and cost advantage. Rather than a hard rule, try Sonnet 5 at high effort first; move to Opus 5 if it falls short.