Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1: Overview
Claude Opus 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal language model developed by Anthropic, released on April 16, 2026. It is designed for agentic coding, long-horizon task execution, and enterprise knowledge work. The model supports text and vision inputs and operates with a context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens. It introduces adaptive thinking, which dynamically allocates reasoning based on task complexity, along with configurable effort controls including a new xhigh setting that sits between the existing high and max levels. It achieves 87.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 78.0% on OSWorld-Verified, reflecting strong performance on autonomous software engineering and computer use tasks respectively.
Compared to Claude Opus 4.6, version 4.7 shows improved instruction following and higher reliability in extended agentic tasks. Vision capabilities now support high-resolution inputs up to 2,576px on the long edge (~3.75 megapixels), more than three times the resolution of prior Claude models, enabling finer interpretation of dense diagrams, UI screenshots, and document layouts. These improvements, combined with self-verification on long-running tasks and a new task budget system for controlling agentic loops, make it well-suited for complex software engineering, technical analysis, and multimodal vision workflows.
GPT-5.1 is an OpenAI frontier-grade model in the GPT-5 series, offering stronger general-purpose reasoning, clearer long-form responses, and improved instruction following. It introduces two variants—Instant and Thinking—that dynamically adjust computational depth. Instant focuses on fast, conversational replies, while Thinking provides deeper, more thorough reasoning for complex tasks. In ChatGPT, GPT-5.1 also powers an Auto mode that switches between these variants automatically based on task difficulty.
The model supports significantly expanded context windows: up to 16K/32K/128K tokens for Instant (depending on tier) and up to 196K tokens for Thinking on paid tiers. GPT-5.1 is also compatible with ChatGPT tools such as web search, file and image analysis, and multi-step workflows.
GPT-5.1 includes enhanced tone and style controls, allowing responses to be tailored using presets like Friendly, Professional, or Efficient, along with fine-grained adjustments for warmth, brevity, and emoji usage. Designed for broad applications in research assistance, coding, analysis, and conversational agents, GPT-5.1 serves as OpenAI’s primary full-capability successor to GPT-5 across ChatGPT and API integrations.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.1 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 196K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 110 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology