Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.4 Nano
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano: 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-5.4 nano is a high-throughput model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, as the efficiency-optimized entry in the GPT-5.4 family. Engineered for cost-sensitive production environments and latency-critical workloads, it features an expanded 400,000-token context window that enables the processing of large document batches or extensive logs in a single pass. The model is primarily optimized for text-heavy operations, serving as a premier engine for high-volume classification, data extraction, ranking, and the orchestration of lightweight sub-agents where speed and low per-token costs are the primary requirements.
While it supports text and image inputs, GPT-5.4 nano is designed as a text-first worker rather than a specialized visual reasoning tool. In multi-model architectures, it is best utilized for structured text tasks and simple coding sub-tasks, leaving intensive vision reasoning and UI navigation to its sibling, GPT-5.4 mini. Compared to the previous GPT-5 nano, this version provides a significant leap in reliability for structured outputs and tool calling, making it a dependable and economical choice for developers building scalable, automated pipelines that require rapid execution at the edge of the GPT-5.4 ecosystem.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.4 Nano Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.200 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $1.25 |
| 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% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | 3.72s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 110 | 105 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | $0.0004 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 86.9% | 62.45% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.19s | 2.59s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 969 | 105 |
| Median output tokens | 81 | 87 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0069 | $0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 55.6%(55/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | 83.3%(25/30) |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | 70%(21/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 81.7%(49/60) | 66.7%(40/60) |
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