Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5

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

Quick verdict

Both flagships cost $5/Mtok on input, so the sticker-price difference lives entirely in output: $25 for Opus 4.7 against $30 for GPT-5.5. Pick by workload, not price. Opus 4.7 has been the more dependable model for long agentic coding sessions in our use; GPT-5.5 counters with native PDF handling inside a very mature tooling ecosystem. If you're already deep in one provider's SDK and caching setup, the switching cost eats the price difference many times over.

Claude Opus 4.7 GPT-5.5
Provider Anthropic OpenAI
Input price $5/Mtok $5/Mtok
Output price $25/Mtok $30/Mtok
Context window 1,000,000 1,050,000
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 2026-04-23

Estimate costs for your workload →

How much does each one actually cost to run?

Input is a wash: $5/Mtok on both. Output is where they split, $25/Mtok for Opus 4.7 against $30/Mtok for GPT-5.5, a 20% premium on GPT-5.5.

Here's what that looks like on a realistic agent workload of 1M input tokens and 200K output tokens per day. Opus 4.7 runs $10/day, about $300/month. GPT-5.5 runs $11/day, about $330/month. A $30/month gap at this usage level. If your workload is output-heavy (long reports, generated documents), the gap widens; if it's input-heavy (huge prompts, short answers), it nearly disappears.

Both providers offer prompt caching, and at flagship prices caching is not optional. A well-cached agent loop routinely cuts effective input spend by half or more, which matters far more than the $5/Mtok output difference.

Which is better for agentic coding?

This is the tier you buy for hard, multi-step work, and it's where the models differentiate beyond the spec sheet. In our use, Opus 4.7 stays coherent deeper into long agentic sessions: it keeps track of what it already tried, and its tool calls degrade less as context fills. That reliability is the main reason to pay flagship prices at all.

GPT-5.5 is no slouch on code, and it has one concrete spec advantage: the same 128K output ceiling as Opus, plus a marginally larger context window (1.05M vs 1M tokens). Nobody will ever feel that context difference in practice. Both models take images and PDFs as input, both support reasoning, and both do structured tool calling.

What about ecosystem and lock-in?

By this point most teams are not choosing a model, they're choosing a stack. OpenAI's ecosystem is broader: more third-party tooling assumes an OpenAI-compatible API shape first. Anthropic's tooling is narrower but deep on exactly this tier's use case, long-running agents and coding.

The honest advice: if you're already running one of these providers in production, with caching, evals, and monitoring wired up, stay put unless you have a measured quality problem. Migrating a production agent stack to save $5/Mtok on output is a bad trade.

Which should you pick?

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if:

  • Your workload is long agentic coding or multi-file refactors
  • Session coherence over hours matters more than raw speed
  • You're already on Anthropic's SDK and caching

Pick GPT-5.5 if:

  • Your stack is built around OpenAI-compatible tooling
  • You need the broadest third-party integration surface
  • Your tasks are shorter and benefit from the wider ecosystem

Either way, run your own eval set before committing. At $300+/month per seat-equivalent of traffic, an afternoon of benchmarking pays for itself immediately.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 cheaper than GPT-5.5?

On output tokens, yes: $25/Mtok against $30/Mtok, a 20% difference. Input pricing is identical at $5/Mtok, so input-heavy workloads cost nearly the same on both. On a typical agent workload of 1M input and 200K output tokens a day, Opus 4.7 costs about $300/month and GPT-5.5 about $330/month.

Which has the bigger context window, Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 lists 1.05M tokens against Opus 4.7's 1M. The 5% difference is not noticeable in any real workload; both comfortably hold an entire mid-size repository.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5?

Both are top-tier. In our use, Opus 4.7 is more dependable across long agentic coding sessions, keeping tool calls coherent as context fills. GPT-5.5 is strong on shorter coding tasks and benefits from a broader third-party tooling ecosystem. Benchmark both on your own tasks before deciding.

Do Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 both support PDF input?

Yes. Both models accept text, images, and PDFs as input, and both support reasoning and structured tool calling. Multimodal capability is not a deciding factor between these two.

More comparisons

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