GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which model should you use?
There is no single winner: GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4%, while Claude leads SWE Bench Pro at 64.3% versus 58.6%; both comparisons need caveats.[4][8] For UI first front end drafts, Appwrite said Claude Opus 4.7 produced clearer hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer repe...
Published byEdited with GPT-5.5Images generated with GPT Image 2
There is no single winner: GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4%, while Claude leads SWE Bench Pro at 64.3% versus 58.6%; both comparisons need caveats.[4][8]
For UI first front end drafts, Appwrite said Claude Opus 4.7 produced clearer hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer repetitive card grids.[1]
Standard API input pricing is $5 per 1M tokens for both; output pricing is $30 per 1M for GPT 5.5 and starts at $25 per 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.[23][28]
GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: 코딩·UI·가격별 승자는코딩 벤치마크, UI 생성 품질, API 비용은 서로 다른 선택 기준을 제시한다.
AI Prompt
Create a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: 코딩·UI·가격별 승자는?. Article summary: 전체 승자를 단정하기는 어렵습니다. GPT 5.5는 Terminal Bench 2.0에서 82.7%로 Claude Opus 4.7의 69.4%를 앞섰지만, Claude는 SWE Bench Pro에서 64.3%로 GPT 5.5의 58.6%보다 높아 작업별 선택이 필요합니다.[4][8]. Topic tags: ai, openai, anthropic, claude, gpt 5. Reference image context from search candidates: Reference image 1: visual subject "# OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which is better? OpenAI released its latest model, GPT-5.5, on April 23, just a week after Anthropic introduced Claude Opus 4.7. **Spoiler al" source context "OpenAI's GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which is better? | Mashable" Reference image 2: visual subject "# OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which is better? OpenAI released its latest model, GPT-5.5, on April 23, just a week after Anthropic introduced Claude Opus 4.7. **Spoil
openai.com
Choosing between GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 is less about crowning one universal champion and more about reducing risk in a specific workflow. OpenAI describes GPT-5.5 as a model for complex real-world work, including code, online research, information analysis, documents and spreadsheets, and moving across tools. Anthropic describes Claude Opus 4.7 as its most capable generally available model for complex reasoning and agentic coding.
The public evidence points in different directions. GPT-5.5 has the stronger signal for terminal-style agent work, while Claude Opus 4.7 has stronger signals for real GitHub issue resolution, UI-first generation and standard output-token pricing.
Studio Global AI
Continue your research
This page includes a source-backed answer you can continue inside Studio Global.
What is the short answer to "GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7: Which model should you use?"?
There is no single winner: GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4%, while Claude leads SWE Bench Pro at 64.3% versus 58.6%; both comparisons need caveats.[4][8]
What are the key points to validate first?
There is no single winner: GPT 5.5 leads Terminal Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4%, while Claude leads SWE Bench Pro at 64.3% versus 58.6%; both comparisons need caveats.[4][8] For UI first front end drafts, Appwrite said Claude Opus 4.7 produced clearer hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer repetitive card grids.[1]
What should I do next in practice?
Standard API input pricing is $5 per 1M tokens for both; output pricing is $30 per 1M for GPT 5.5 and starts at $25 per 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.[23][28]
Terminal agents and automation: Start with GPT-5.5. RDWorld lists GPT-5.5 at 82.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0 versus 69.4% for Claude Opus 4.7, while noting that different harnesses were used.
Real repository fixes: Put Claude Opus 4.7 in the bake-off. SWE-Bench Pro was reported at 64.3% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 58.6% for GPT-5.5, and Yahoo Tech describes that benchmark as grading real-world GitHub issue resolution.
UI and front-end drafts: Try Claude first. Appwrite found Claude Opus 4.7 stronger for UI-first work, with clearer hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer repetitive card grids.
API cost: If your workload produces a lot of output, Claude may be cheaper on standard list pricing. GPT-5.5 is listed at $5 per 1M input tokens and $30 per 1M output tokens, while Claude Opus 4.7 starts at $5 per 1M input tokens and $25 per 1M output tokens.
Adoption: If you already work inside ChatGPT, Codex or OpenAI API workflows, GPT-5.5 may be easier to test first. If you are already on Claude, Opus 4.7 is available through the Claude API as claude-opus-4-7, but Anthropic notes breaking API changes versus Opus 4.6.
Side-by-side snapshot
Question
GPT-5.5
Claude Opus 4.7
How to read it
Model positioning
OpenAI frames it for code, online research, analysis, documents, spreadsheets and tool use.
Anthropic frames it as its most capable generally available model for complex reasoning and agentic coding.
Both are premium work models, but the product emphasis differs.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
82.7%.
69.4%.
Stronger GPT-5.5 signal for terminal-style agents, with a harness caveat.
SWE-Bench Pro
58.6%.
64.3%.
Stronger Claude signal for real GitHub issue resolution.
GPQA Diamond
93.6%.
94.2%.
The gap is small, and RDWorld labels this area as saturated.
HLE, no tools
41.4%.
46.9%.
Claude has the higher listed score on this tool-free hard evaluation.
BrowseComp
84.4%.
79.3%.
GPT-5.5 is higher, but RDWorld flags contamination concerns.
UI-first generation
Appwrite says it can fall back to repetitive card grids without explicit prompting.
Appwrite says it produces clearer hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer reflexive card grids.
Claude is the stronger first-draft candidate for UI work.
Standard API price
$5 per 1M input tokens, $30 per 1M output tokens, with a 1M-token context window.
Starts at $5 per 1M input tokens and $25 per 1M output tokens.
Input pricing is similar; Claude has the lower standard output price.
Coding: separate terminal agents from repository fixes
It is tempting to treat all coding benchmarks as one scoreboard, but the results here reward different skills.
For terminal-driven work, GPT-5.5 has the clearer public signal. RDWorld lists GPT-5.5 at 82.7% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4%, while also noting that the comparison used different harnesses. VentureBeat similarly framed GPT-5.5’s lead over Anthropic as a result on one benchmark, Terminal-Bench 2.0.
For real repository issue resolution, Claude Opus 4.7 looks stronger. Yahoo Tech reported SWE-Bench Pro scores of 64.3% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 58.6% for GPT-5.5, and described SWE-Bench Pro as a benchmark that grades real-world GitHub issue resolution.
That means the practical split is this: if your workflow is mostly shell commands, tool calls, test runs and agentic automation, GPT-5.5 should probably be tested first. If the job is fixing bugs in an existing codebase and getting repository tests to pass, Claude Opus 4.7 deserves a serious head-to-head.
Do not treat either number as a final verdict. Yahoo Tech reported OpenAI’s claim that Claude’s SWE-Bench Pro score may reflect memorization on a subset of problems, and RDWorld also marks SWE-Bench Pro with a memorization concern. Before production rollout, run both models on the same repository, prompts, tests and acceptance criteria.
UI and front-end drafts: Claude gets the nod
Product teams often need more than correct code. A landing page, dashboard or app screen also needs visual hierarchy, spacing, component choices and typography that do not feel generic.
That is where Claude Opus 4.7 has the stronger third-party signal. Appwrite judged Claude Opus 4.7 to be better than GPT-5.5 for UI-first work, saying it produces clearer layout hierarchy, tighter typography and fewer reflexive card grids out of the box.
This is not the same kind of evidence as a formal benchmark table. It is a qualitative assessment of generated UI output. Still, for teams trying to turn a prompt into a usable first design draft, it is a meaningful signal. If you use GPT-5.5 for this kind of work, the safer approach is to be more explicit about layout, typography, visual rhythm and component structure.
Reasoning and browsing: mixed signals, not a clean sweep
On broader reasoning and research-style evaluations, the evidence is mixed rather than one-sided. RDWorld lists GPQA Diamond at 93.6% for GPT-5.5 and 94.2% for Claude Opus 4.7, while marking the area as saturated. On HLE without tools, GPT-5.5 is listed at 41.4% and Claude Opus 4.7 at 46.9%, giving Claude the higher score in that row.
BrowseComp points the other way: RDWorld lists GPT-5.5 at 84.4% and Claude Opus 4.7 at 79.3%. But the same table flags contamination concerns, so that number alone is not enough to declare a general web-research winner.
Pricing: output-heavy jobs may favor Claude
OpenAI says GPT-5.5 will be available to API developers in the Responses and Chat Completions APIs at $5 per 1M input tokens and $30 per 1M output tokens, with a 1M-token context window. OpenAI also lists Batch and Flex at half the standard API rate, and Priority processing at 2.5 times the standard rate.
Anthropic says Claude Opus 4.7 pricing starts at $5 per 1M input tokens and $25 per 1M output tokens. It also says prompt caching can cut costs by up to 90%, while batch processing can save 50%.
On standard list pricing, input costs are effectively the same and Claude’s output price is $5 per 1M tokens lower. That can matter for workloads that generate long answers, such as code, documentation, refactoring explanations or large report drafts. The real bill, however, depends on output length, retry rates, cache hits and whether you can batch work. OpenAI says GPT-5.5 is more intelligent and more token efficient than GPT-5.4, but that is not a direct cost comparison with Claude Opus 4.7.
Integration: your existing stack matters
Availability and tooling can be as important as raw benchmark numbers. OpenAI announced GPT-5.5 for Codex and ChatGPT, and said API access through Responses and Chat Completions is coming for developers. If your team already uses ChatGPT, Codex or OpenAI API infrastructure, GPT-5.5 may be the lower-friction first experiment.
Claude Opus 4.7 is available through the Claude API as claude-opus-4-7. But Anthropic’s release notes say Opus 4.7 includes API breaking changes versus Opus 4.6, so teams upgrading existing Claude integrations should review migration requirements before switching.
The wrapper around the model also matters. In a Claude Code quality postmortem, Anthropic said a system prompt change produced a 3% drop for both Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7 on one evaluation, and that it reverted the prompt in the April 20 release. In practice, the same model can feel different depending on system prompts, product wrappers and tool chains.
Recommended routing by workload
Priority
Test first
Why
Terminal commands, shell workflows and agent automation
GPT-5.5
Terminal-Bench 2.0 lists GPT-5.5 at 82.7% versus 69.4% for Claude Opus 4.7, with a harness caveat.
Existing repository bugs and GitHub issue resolution
Claude Opus 4.7
SWE-Bench Pro was reported at 64.3% for Claude Opus 4.7 versus 58.6% for GPT-5.5.
Landing pages, dashboards and app-screen drafts
Claude Opus 4.7
Appwrite found Claude stronger for UI-first generation, especially layout hierarchy and typography.
Output-heavy code or document generation
Claude Opus 4.7
Standard output pricing starts at $25 per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 versus $30 per 1M tokens for GPT-5.5.
ChatGPT or Codex-centered workflows
GPT-5.5
OpenAI announced GPT-5.5 availability in Codex and ChatGPT.
Existing Claude API products
Claude Opus 4.7, after migration checks
Anthropic supports claude-opus-4-7, but notes breaking API changes versus Opus 4.6.
Bottom line
GPT-5.5 does not clearly beat Claude Opus 4.7 across the board, and Claude Opus 4.7 does not clearly replace GPT-5.5 for every developer workflow. The better reading of the public evidence is a routing strategy.
Use GPT-5.5 first for terminal automation, tool-heavy agents and teams already built around ChatGPT, Codex or OpenAI APIs. Use Claude Opus 4.7 first for real repository issue resolution, UI-first drafts and output-heavy workloads where standard API pricing matters. Then run your own evaluation on the exact tasks, repositories and quality bars that matter to your team.
How OpenAI's recently released GPT-5.5 stacks up with Anthropic's ...
