Model Comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
vs. Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic
Recommended Pick
An Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) 11 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
45.1 reasoning / $6.56/1M
Lowest Price
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
$3.75/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
57.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
53.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) is 1.7x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.1x as many tokens per second as Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) by 12.1 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) by 22.5 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick An Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $6.25/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $25.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $10.94/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Release Date | May 22, 2025 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 56.0 tok/s | 50.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 959ms | 815ms |
| Latency | 959ms | 815ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 76.1 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.1 | 57.2 |
| Intelligence | 33.0 | 51.8 |
| Coding | 30.6 | 53.1 |
| Math | 38.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 68.3% | 88.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.7% | — |
| HLE | 4.0% | 31.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 44.9% | — |
| MATH 500 | 93.4% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 38.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 40.7% | — |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 50.1% |
| LCR | 44.3% | 67.0% |
| IFBench | 45.4% | 43.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 52.3% | 74.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 27.3% | 54.5% |
Key Takeaways
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $3.75/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 57.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 53.1 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
