Claude Opus 4.7 vs LLaVA-1.5
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and LLaVA-1.5 side-by-side.
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 vs LLaVA-1.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs LLaVA-1.5: 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.
LLaVA-1.5 is an open-source large multimodal model released in October 2023 by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Microsoft Research. It builds on the original LLaVA architecture by introducing targeted refinements: switching the vision encoder to CLIP-ViT-L at 336-pixel resolution, replacing the projection layer with a two-layer MLP, and adding academic-task-oriented visual question answering data with response formatting prompts during training. These modifications achieve state-of-the-art performance across 11 benchmarks at release, with training completing in approximately one day on a single 8-A100 node.
The model accepts an image paired with a text prompt and generates natural language responses, supporting visual question answering, image captioning, and open-ended visual conversation. LLaVA-1.5 is available in 7B and 13B parameter variants built on the Vicuna language model, and is distributed under the Llama 2 Community License due to its Llama-2-based foundation. The original LLaVA paper was presented as an oral at NeurIPS 2023. Subsequent releases in the series (LLaVA-NeXT (LLaVA-1.6), LLaVA-NeXT-Video, and LLaVA-OneVision) are separate models with their own release pages and build on this foundation with expanded OCR, video, and multi-image capabilities.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs LLaVA-1.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | LLaVA-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Microsoft |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Oct 2023 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 7B, 13B | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation 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