Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

Side-by-side pricing, context windows, and capabilities, plus a verdict on which one to pick.

Quick verdict

The question is not which model is better; Opus 4.7 is. The question is where Sonnet 4.6 stops being enough, because it costs $3/$15 against Opus's $5/$25, and for most tasks you will not see the difference. The pattern that works in practice: default everything to Sonnet, then promote the specific call sites that keep failing. If you watch your retry rate, the split finds itself.

Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Sonnet 4.6
Provider Anthropic Anthropic
Input price $5/Mtok $3/Mtok
Output price $25/Mtok $15/Mtok
Context window 1,000,000 1,000,000
Max output tokens 128,000 128,000
Input modalities text, image, pdf text, image, pdf
Capabilities vision, tools, reasoning, structured output vision, tools, reasoning, structured output
Released 2026-04-14 2026-02-17

Estimate costs for your workload →

Anthropic's own lineup creates this decision, and it's the most common model question Claude users actually face. Both models share a 1M-token context window, the same modalities (text, images, PDFs), reasoning, and tool calling. What differs is price, output ceiling, and how they handle the hardest work.

What does the price difference add up to?

Sonnet 4.6: $3/Mtok in, $15/Mtok out. Opus 4.7: $5 in, $25 out. On a workload of 1M input and 200K output tokens per day, Sonnet costs about $180/month and Opus about $300/month. Run everything on Opus and you're paying a 67% premium across your whole traffic for headroom most calls never use.

That's the case for defaulting to Sonnet. The case for Opus is what happens on the calls where Sonnet isn't enough.

What does Opus actually do better?

Judgment on hard problems. The concrete version: long agentic sessions that stay on track instead of drifting, tricky refactors that come back right the first time, multi-file changes where the model has to hold a plan. When Sonnet needs two or three attempts, each retry costs tokens and, worse, your time reviewing failed output. A task that Opus completes once for $0.50 is cheaper than one Sonnet completes on the third try for $0.90.

Opus also doubles the output ceiling, 128K tokens per response against Sonnet's 64K. If you generate large single artifacts, that alone can force the choice.

How do teams split traffic in practice?

The pattern we keep seeing, and use ourselves: everything defaults to Sonnet 4.6. Then watch two signals per call site: retry rate and human-correction rate. Call sites that keep failing get promoted to Opus. In most codebases that ends up being a small fraction of traffic, deep refactoring, architecture-level changes, long agent runs, while the bulk stays on Sonnet at 60% of the cost.

The anti-pattern is running Opus for everything out of caution. You'll pay roughly $120 more per month per 1M-daily-input of traffic, mostly for tasks where the models are indistinguishable.

When is Sonnet simply enough?

Honestly: most of the time. Everyday feature work, code review, test writing, documentation, summarization, standard agent substeps. Sonnet 4.6 is itself a frontier-class model; it isn't the budget option, it's the default option. Reserve Opus for the work you'd assign to your most senior engineer, and let the retry data tell you where that line sits in your codebase.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much more expensive is Claude Opus 4.7 than Sonnet 4.6?

About 67% on both sides: $5/$25 per Mtok against $3/$15. On 1M input and 200K output tokens per day, that is roughly $300/month for Opus against $180/month for Sonnet.

Do Opus 4.7 and Sonnet 4.6 have the same context window?

Yes, both offer a 1M-token context window with the same input modalities (text, images, PDFs). The spec differences are output capacity, 128K tokens for Opus against 64K for Sonnet, and price.

When should I upgrade from Sonnet 4.6 to Opus 4.7?

When specific call sites keep failing: high retry rates, repeated human corrections, or long agentic sessions that drift. Promote those call sites to Opus and keep the rest on Sonnet. Most teams find only a small fraction of traffic genuinely needs Opus.

Is Sonnet 4.6 good enough for production coding?

Yes. Sonnet 4.6 is a frontier-class model and the right default for everyday feature work, code review, tests, and agent substeps. Opus 4.7 earns its premium on the hardest tasks: deep refactors, architecture-level changes, and multi-hour agent runs.

More comparisons

Spec data last synced August 28, 2026 from models.dev. Pricing can change; confirm on the provider's page before committing.