Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5: what the 2026 benchmarks really show
The cleanest comparable data favors GPT 5.5 on Terminal Bench 2.0, 82.7% vs 69.4%, and Claude Opus 4.7 on SWE Bench Pro Public, 64.3% vs 58.6% [5]. There is no universal winner: Claude leads MCP Atlas and FinanceAgent v1.1, while GPT 5.5 leads BrowseComp, GDPval, OfficeQA Pro and FrontierMath in the available tables...
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5: Benchmark 2026 dan Status DeepSeek V4/Kimi K2.6Ilustrasi AI-generated untuk perbandingan benchmark model AI frontier 2026.
AI Prompt
Create a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5: Benchmark 2026 dan Status DeepSeek V4/Kimi K2.6. Article summary: Bukti terkuat hanya mendukung head to head Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.5: GPT 5.5 unggul di Terminal Bench 2.0 (82.7% vs 69.4%), sedangkan Claude unggul di SWE Bench Pro (64.3% vs 58.6%); DeepSeek V4 dan Kimi K2.6 belum.... Topic tags: ai, ai benchmarks, openai, anthropic, claude. Reference image context from search candidates: Reference image 1: visual subject "[Kimi K2 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.5 Comparison](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M90iB4hpenI). . [](https://www.youtube.com" source context "Kimi K2 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.5 Comparison - YouTube" Reference image 2: visual subject "[Kimi K2 vs Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.5 Comparison](https://www.youtube.com/watc
openai.com
Benchmark comparisons can look decisive until you read the fine print. Model version, benchmark variant, evaluation harness, date and retry policy can all change the story. In the cited sources, the strongest apples-to-apples comparison is Claude Opus 4.7 against GPT-5.5, because both appear in the same OpenAI and Vellum benchmark tables . DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6 are a different case: the available figures point to DeepSeek V3.2, KimiK2.5 and Kimi K2 Thinking instead, so they should not be ranked as if they had been tested head to head .
Key takeaways
GPT-5.5 has the clearest lead for terminal/CLI work, office-style professional tasks, browser/search tasks and some math evaluations in the available data .
Studio Global AI
Search, cite, and publish your own answer
Use this topic as a starting point for a fresh source-backed answer, then compare citations before you share it.
What is the short answer to "Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5: what the 2026 benchmarks really show"?
The cleanest comparable data favors GPT 5.5 on Terminal Bench 2.0, 82.7% vs 69.4%, and Claude Opus 4.7 on SWE Bench Pro Public, 64.3% vs 58.6% [5].
What are the key points to validate first?
The cleanest comparable data favors GPT 5.5 on Terminal Bench 2.0, 82.7% vs 69.4%, and Claude Opus 4.7 on SWE Bench Pro Public, 64.3% vs 58.6% [5]. There is no universal winner: Claude leads MCP Atlas and FinanceAgent v1.1, while GPT 5.5 leads BrowseComp, GDPval, OfficeQA Pro and FrontierMath in the available tables [2][5].
What should I do next in practice?
DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6 cannot be ranked fairly from these sources because the available figures refer to DeepSeek V3.2, KimiK2.5 and Kimi K2 Thinking [1][13][6].
Claude Opus 4.7 leads the directly comparable data for SWE-Bench Pro Public, MCP Atlas and FinanceAgent v1.1 .
DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6 do not have direct benchmark numbers in these sources, so claims that they beat or trail Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5 are not supported here .
The cleanest head-to-head numbers
The table below only pairs Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 on the same named benchmark. GPT-5.5 Pro is included only where the source lists it as a separate variant .
Product question
Benchmark
Reported result
Practical read
Code repair
SWE-Bench Pro Public
Claude Opus 4.7 64.3% vs GPT-5.5 58.6%
Claude leads on this specific coding-repair test.
Terminal/CLI agents
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.5 82.7% vs Claude Opus 4.7 69.4%
GPT-5.5 has the most obvious lead here.
Professional work
GDPval; OfficeQA Pro
GPT-5.5 84.9% vs Claude 80.3% on GDPval wins/ties; GPT-5.5 54.1% vs Claude 43.6% on OfficeQA Pro
GPT-5.5 leads both professional-work metrics.
Finance agents
FinanceAgent v1.1
Claude 64.4% vs GPT-5.5 60.0%
Claude leads this finance-agent evaluation.
Computer and browser tasks
OSWorld-Verified; BrowseComp
GPT-5.5 78.7% vs Claude 78.0% on OSWorld-Verified; GPT-5.5 84.4% and GPT-5.5 Pro 90.1% vs Claude 79.3% on BrowseComp
OSWorld is nearly tied; GPT-5.5 is higher on BrowseComp.
Tool orchestration
MCP Atlas
Claude 79.1% vs GPT-5.5 75.3%
Claude leads this tool-heavy benchmark.
Science and math reasoning
GPQA Diamond; FrontierMath T1–3
Claude 94.2% vs GPT-5.5 93.6% on GPQA Diamond; GPT-5.5 51.7% and GPT-5.5 Pro 52.4% vs Claude 43.8% on FrontierMath T1–3
GPQA is too close to matter much; GPT-5.5 is higher on FrontierMath.
How to read the benchmarks without overclaiming
1. Do not mix SWE-Bench Pro with SWE-bench Verified
OpenAI uses SWE-Bench Pro Public in its GPT-5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7 table . That is not the same thing as SWE-bench Verified. BenchLM describes SWE-bench Verified as a curated, human-verified subset of SWE-bench that tests models on real GitHub issues from popular Python repositories such as Django, Flask and scikit-learn .
That means Claude's 64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro Public should not be compared directly with Claude scores on SWE-bench Verified leaderboards unless the benchmark variant, harness, evaluation date and model configuration are aligned .
2. GPQA Diamond is no longer a sharp separator
Vellum reports Claude Opus 4.7 at 94.2% and GPT-5.5 at 93.6% on GPQA Diamond . The Next Web also reported a tight cluster on the same benchmark, with Claude Opus 4.7 at 94.2%, GPT-5.4 Pro at 94.4% and Gemini 3.1 Pro at 94.3%, and described those differences as within noise .
For model selection, GPQA is still a useful reasoning signal. It just should not be the deciding metric on its own when frontier models are separated by fractions of a point.
3. Third-party leaderboards can disagree
SWE-bench Verified numbers for Claude Opus 4.7 vary by source. BenchLM lists Claude Opus 4.7 Adaptive at 87.6% as of April 24, 2026 . LLM Stats also reports 87.6% . LM Council shows Claude Opus 4.7 max at 83.5% ± 1.7 , while MindStudio gives 82.4% .
That spread does not automatically mean one table is wrong. It usually reflects differences in model settings, evaluation harnesses, dates, retry handling, reasoning modes or leaderboard rules. For engineering teams, public leaderboards are best treated as a shortlist, not a substitute for testing on your own repositories, tools and workflows.
Where Claude Opus 4.7 looks strongest
The strongest signals for Claude Opus 4.7 are code repair and tool orchestration. In OpenAI's table, Claude beats GPT-5.5 on SWE-Bench Pro Public, 64.3% to 58.6%, and on FinanceAgent v1.1, 64.4% to 60.0% . Vellum also reports Claude ahead on MCP Atlas, 79.1% to GPT-5.5's 75.3% .
Anthropic's own launch note points to partner evidence around agentic workflows. It cites Hebbia seeing a double-digit jump in tool-call accuracy and planning in orchestrator agents, and Rakuten-SWE-Bench reporting that Opus 4.7 resolved three times as many production tasks as Opus 4.6, with double-digit gains in Code Quality and Test Quality . Those are useful product signals, but they are not the same as an independent evaluation on your own production stack.
The practical read: if your priority is autonomous repo repair, MCP-style tool orchestration or long multi-tool workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 deserves an early slot in your evaluation. Still, validate it against your test suites, permission model and real tool-calling patterns.
Where GPT-5.5 looks strongest
GPT-5.5's clearest lead is Terminal-Bench 2.0. OpenAI reports GPT-5.5 at 82.7%, compared with Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.4% and Gemini 3.1 Pro at 68.5% . In the same OpenAI table, GPT-5.5 also leads Claude on GDPval wins/ties, 84.9% to 80.3%, and OfficeQA Pro, 54.1% to 43.6% .
Vellum adds more context for computer use, browser/search and reasoning. It reports GPT-5.5 slightly ahead of Claude on OSWorld-Verified, 78.7% to 78.0%; ahead on BrowseComp, 84.4% to 79.3%; and ahead on FrontierMath T1–3, 51.7% to 43.8% . For BrowseComp, Vellum also lists GPT-5.5 Pro at 90.1% .
The coding picture is mixed rather than one-sided. GPT-5.5 is very strong on Terminal-Bench 2.0, but trails Claude Opus 4.7 on SWE-Bench Pro Public in OpenAI's head-to-head table . OpenAI's system card separately describes CoT-Control, a controllability suite with more than 13,000 tasks drawn from GPQA, MMLU-Pro, HLE, BFCL and SWE-Bench Verified, but that source does not provide a direct comparison with DeepSeek V4 or Kimi K2.6 .
DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6: the evidence gap
For DeepSeek V4, the cited sources do not provide direct benchmark scores. The closest data point is for DeepSeek V3.2: MangoMind places DeepSeek V3.2 in an April 2026 coding recommendation list with 89.2% on SWE-bench, below Claude Opus 4.6 at 93.2% and GPT-5.4 Pro at 91.1% . That cannot be used to infer DeepSeek V4's performance.
Kimi K2.6 has the same problem. Stanford HAI says KimiK2.5 was among models grouped between 70% and 76% on SWE-bench Verified as of February 2026 . Siliconflow lists Kimi K2 Thinking with GPQA 84.5 and SWE Bench 71.3 . Those figures are useful context for the Kimi ecosystem, but they are not benchmark evidence for Kimi K2.6.
What to test first
If your main need is...
Test first
Why
Caveat
Terminal or CLI coding agents
GPT-5.5
Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.5 82.7% vs Claude 69.4%
Re-test in your actual shell environment, permissions model and CI/CD setup.
Autonomous repo repair
Claude Opus 4.7, then GPT-5.5
SWE-Bench Pro Public: Claude 64.3% vs GPT-5.5 58.6%
Do not mix this with SWE-bench Verified without matching the harness .
Tool-heavy or MCP-style workflows
Claude Opus 4.7
MCP Atlas: Claude 79.1% vs GPT-5.5 75.3%
Validate on your own tool schemas, retries and access policies.
Browser or search agents
GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.5 Pro
BrowseComp: GPT-5.5 84.4%, GPT-5.5 Pro 90.1%, Claude 79.3%
BrowseComp is not a complete proxy for every internal research workflow.
Finance or professional workflows
Split-test Claude and GPT-5.5
Claude leads FinanceAgent v1.1, while GPT-5.5 leads GDPval and OfficeQA Pro
MindStudio argues the gap between a finance benchmark score and a deployed tool is often end-to-end infrastructure, not just model intelligence .
General scientific reasoning
Do not decide from GPQA alone
Claude and GPT-5.5 are very close on GPQA Diamond in Vellum's table
Use domain-specific evaluations, especially if your tasks differ from benchmark questions.
Bottom line
If you only use the direct head-to-head evidence in these sources, GPT-5.5 is the stronger first candidate for terminal/CLI agents, browser/search agents, office-style professional tasks and FrontierMath-style math evaluations . Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger first candidate for SWE-Bench Pro Public, MCP Atlas tool orchestration and FinanceAgent v1.1 .
DeepSeek V4 and Kimi K2.6 should not be forced into the same ranking yet. The available data refers to DeepSeek V3.2, KimiK2.5 and Kimi K2 Thinking, so claims that DeepSeek V4 or Kimi K2.6 beat Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5 are not supported by direct benchmark numbers in the cited sources .
thenextweb.comClaude Opus 4.7 leads on SWE-bench and agentic reasoning, beating GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
