Claude Opus 4.7

Claude Opus 4.7 is Anthropic’s current Opus model for coding, long-context work, and high-resolution vision. It keeps the same $5 input / $25 output API price as Opus 4.6, adds the newest effort controls, and is the Claude model to use when Sonnet is not enough.

If you are deciding whether Opus 4.7 is the right model for you, focus on four things: price, context window, output limits, and the kind of work you do. This page covers those basics first, then shows where Opus 4.7 fits against Sonnet and Opus 4.6.

• Price: $5 input / $25 output per 1M tokens.
• Context window: 1M tokens, with up to 128K output tokens.
• Best for: coding, code review, long tasks, screenshots, diagrams, and other detail-heavy work.
• Compare next: read our Claude Opus 4.7 vs 4.6 comparison if you are deciding whether to switch from the older model.

Claude Opus 4.7 at a glance

Opus 4.7 sits at the top of Anthropic’s generally available Claude lineup. It is built for code-heavy work, long tasks that need steady instruction following, and visual tasks where screenshot or diagram detail matters.

That does not make it the default choice for everyone. Sonnet is still the simpler everyday option. Opus 4.7 is the model to reach for when you need more depth, more patience, or more reliability across a longer piece of work.

What’s new in Claude Opus 4.7

Claude Opus 4.7 is the direct follow-up to Opus 4.6, not a new Claude family. Anthropic kept it aimed at the same premium jobs, but tightened the parts advanced users actually pay for: harder coding, longer agent runs, and better vision on dense screenshots, diagrams, and technical UI.

The practical change is not that Opus 4.7 suddenly replaces Sonnet for everything. The practical change is that when Sonnet taps out, Opus 4.7 is now the cleaner escalation path than Opus 4.6 was. It follows long instructions more literally, handles bigger code edits with fewer retries, and gives you more explicit effort controls when you want the model to spend more time thinking.

• Coding: better on multi-file debugging, repo navigation, code review, and tool-using coding loops.
• Vision: stronger on screenshots, charts, diagrams, and other detail-heavy images where small misses matter.
• Controls: effort levels like xhigh, task budgets, and Claude Code flows like /ultrareview make it easier to spend extra thinking only where it pays back.
• Default premium pick: if you are evaluating Claude’s top model today, 4.7 is the version to test first.

Pricing and access

Opus 4.7 keeps the same API price as Opus 4.6: per million input tokens and per million output tokens. That matters because this is not a price-hike upgrade. The cost decision is about task size and token behavior, not a new per-token rate.

If you use the API, Opus 4.7 sits well above Sonnet on cost, so it helps to reserve it for work that really benefits from the extra depth: code review, large diffs, hard bug hunts, screenshot-heavy analysis, and longer autonomous tasks. If you use Claude through paid plans or Claude Code, the access question is simpler: use Sonnet for throughput and Opus when the task is genuinely difficult or expensive to get wrong.

• Same API price as Opus 4.6: input / output per 1M tokens.
• More expensive than Sonnet: do not default to Opus unless the task needs it.
• Best budget rule: send premium work to Opus, not every chat, draft, or lightweight coding step.

Benchmarks and what they mean

Opus 4.7’s benchmark story matters most if your work looks like long coding tasks, tool-assisted debugging, or dense visual analysis. That is where public gains usually show up first, and that is also where a better premium model saves the most human time.

The right way to read those gains is not “the score went up, therefore every task gets better.” The right way to read them is: if your work depends on repo-scale reasoning, multi-step tool use, or careful visual interpretation, Opus 4.7 gives you a better base model to test. If your work is short chat, fast drafting, or simple prompt-response tasks, the benchmark gains matter a lot less.

• Good signal: coding, tool chains, vision-heavy review, and long multi-step reasoning.
• Weak signal: short summaries, basic writing, everyday brainstorming, and other Sonnet-friendly work.

Context window, output limits, and thinking controls

Opus 4.7 supports up to a 1M-token context window and up to 128K output tokens. That gives it room for large repositories, long documentation sets, or messy multi-file prompts, but the real decision is not whether the model can hold that much. It is whether your task justifies paying for that much context.

In practice, the useful controls are the effort settings and review modes around the model. If a task is simple, keep it on a lighter setting and move on. If a task is expensive to get wrong, this is where Opus 4.7 earns its keep: you can give it more room, more budget, and more time to reason before it answers.

• Use big context when: the repo, prompt history, or document set truly needs it.
• Use xhigh or deeper review when: the task involves hard code changes, tricky logic, or careful cross-file reasoning.
• Do not assume bigger is better: oversized prompts and oversized budgets can drive up cost without improving the answer.

When to use Opus 4.7 and when to stay on Sonnet

Use Opus 4.7 when the task is expensive enough that model quality matters more than speed. That usually means bigger code edits, complicated bug hunts, screenshot-based analysis, or long runs where the model has to keep instructions straight for a while.

Stay on Sonnet when the work is high-volume, iterative, or lightweight. Sonnet is still the better default for many teams because it is faster and cheaper. The usual healthy pattern is Sonnet for throughput, Opus for escalation.

• Choose Opus 4.7 for: repo surgery, strict code review, long tool runs, and visual tasks where detail matters.
• Choose Sonnet for: drafting, routine coding help, fast Q&A, and cost-sensitive workflows.
• Stay on Opus 4.6 temporarily if: you have a stable evaluation harness and do not want to re-test prompts yet.

Who should use Claude Opus 4.7

Opus 4.7 is best for developers, technical teams, and operators who already know when a premium model is worth paying for. If the task is a real workflow bottleneck, not just a casual chat, Opus 4.7 is easier to justify.

• Strong fit: software teams, AI engineers, analysts, and operators running long or complex tasks.
• Conditional fit: founders and PMs who only need premium help occasionally.
• Weak fit: users who mainly want quick writing, light coding, or inexpensive everyday prompting.

Migration checklist from Opus 4.6

1. Re-run your real coding and review tasks, not just toy prompts.
2. Watch token consumption on long prompts and high-effort runs before switching defaults.
3. Compare screenshot and vision-heavy tasks separately, because that is one of the real upgrade areas.
4. If you use Claude Code, retest the prompts or commands that already drive the most spend.
5. Keep Sonnet as the everyday fallback unless the team truly needs Opus all day.

Where to go next

If you want the exact upgrade decision and the benchmark-level view, read our Claude Opus 4.7 vs 4.6 comparison. If you want the practical day-to-day fit, read Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Code, and Claude updates.

Frequently Asked Questions