Back to Value Frontier

Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs OpenAI: GPT-5.2 Pro

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 9:17:06 PM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) against OpenAI: GPT-5.2 Pro, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) is approximately 5% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) leads with a statistical ELO score of 1642. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast), provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast)
OpenAI: GPT-5.2 Pro
Performance (ELO)
1642
1508
Input Cost / 1M
$30.00
$21.00
Output Cost / 1M
$150.00
$168.00
Context Window
1,000,000 tokens
400,000 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) cheaper than OpenAI: GPT-5.2 Pro?

Yes. Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) is cheaper for both input and output generation compared to OpenAI: GPT-5.2 Pro. Exploring alternatives often yields cost reductions.

Which model has the larger context window?

The Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 1,000,000 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.2 SpecialeCompare Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 ProCompare Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs xAI: Grok 4.3Compare Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs xAI: Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent