ModelSpec is an analysis of alternatives for AI models: it decides which models fit a job from your requirements, sourced benchmarks and real cost, and shows its work.

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 5.5 for Coding (best available), as of 2026-09-23

Find the active coding model with the strongest software-engineering evidence, whatever it costs.

Worked example as of 2026-09-23, from the public data image.

What the evidence says

The evidence can't separate them for this job.

Claude Opus 4.7 has a 26% chance of matching or beating Claude Opus 5.5 on this job's objective.

probability bands: a model joins the leader when P(its score >= the leader's) >= 0.25 under the score posteriors; a weighted capability with an 80% interval wider than 2.8 is not enough evidence

Decision status: partial. P(best) and score intervals retain the full ranked lineup for this job, including models beyond this pair and models with thin evidence. Models with unknown objective values remain unranked and are outside this probability. P(best) is not a head-to-head probability.

Scores and score intervals use the objective's dimensionless normalised units. Cost per task is in USD for the selected offering and the applied spec's task size. When task size is omitted, the engine uses its documented default. Unavailable means the engine returned no value.

ModelScoreScore intervalP(best), ranked job lineupCost per task, USDSelected offering: provider / region / tierCapability estimates and intervals
Claude Opus 4.70.784952[0.517382, 1.052522]4%0.3anthropic / global / standard
  • software_engineering: 0.711822213; interval [-0.020952777, 1.444597204]; benchmarks 5; direct benchmarks 2
Claude Opus 5.51.0[0.661373, 1.338627]21%0.24anthropic / global / standard
  • software_engineering: 1.300758259; interval [0.373384859, 2.22813166]; benchmarks 4; direct benchmarks 2

Strongest coding evidence, cost no object.

Requirements

Preferences

Applied template spec
spec_version
1
where
  • model.class = text-generator
  • model.lifecycle = active
optimize
weights
software_engineering
1.0

Evidence for Claude Opus 4.7

BenchmarkVersionMeasurementUnitPublished intervalEvidence dateMeasurement conditionsProvenance
arena_sc_codingtext_style_control / coding, latest split, revision 1880dbebff5b1551.79Arena score (Elo scale)Unavailable2026-09-13
  • Effort: Unavailable
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: independent_evaluator
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
arena_sc_industry_software_it_servicestext_style_control / industry_software_and_it_services, latest split, revision 1880dbebff5b1540.9Arena score (Elo scale)Unavailable2026-09-13
  • Effort: Unavailable
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: independent_evaluator
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
arena_webdevwebdev / overall, latest split, revision 1880dbebff5b1555.64Arena score (Elo scale)Unavailable2026-09-23
  • Effort: Unavailable
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: independent_evaluator
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
frontiercode_v1_1FrontierCode 1.1, main score (Mean@5)38.5percentUnavailable2026-09-30
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: unregistered
  • Measured by: benchmark_author
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
swe_bench_verifiedSWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI run)83.47percentUnavailable2026-04-20
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: independent_evaluator
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source

Missing facts for Claude Opus 4.7

Evidence for Claude Opus 5.5

BenchmarkVersionMeasurementUnitPublished intervalEvidence dateMeasurement conditionsProvenance
arena_webdevwebdev / overall, latest split, revision 1880dbebff5b1818.41Arena score (Elo scale)Unavailable2026-09-23
  • Effort: Unavailable
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: independent_evaluator
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
cursorbench_4CursorBench 4.057.8percentUnavailable2026-09-30
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: benchmark_author
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
swe_bench_multilingualSWE-bench Multilingual93.9percentUnavailable2026-09-22
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: provider_self_report
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
swe_bench_multimodalSWE-bench Multimodal61.4percentUnavailable2026-09-22
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: provider_self_report
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
swe_bench_proSWE-bench Pro89.9percentUnavailable2026-09-22
  • Effort: max
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: provider_self_report
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source
terminal_bench_v4_0Terminal-Bench 4.066.4percentUnavailable2026-09-22
  • Effort: xhigh
  • Subcategory: Unavailable
  • Harness: Unavailable
  • Measured by: provider_self_report
  • Sample size: Unavailable
Source

Missing facts for Claude Opus 5.5

What this template teaches

With no cost term, the ranking is capability alone; the canvas still shows what each candidate costs.

Decision dec_0180e89bde9bae9adb9de365 on public snapshot snap_05a963d2477ac2fb.

Read the full dated job answer.

The live board uses current data. This link applies the template to its full lineup.

Apply this template on Decide

Human lookup is free on Decide. CLI, API, and MCP access requires a key. Access and pricing.

Use-case examples · Model comparisons · How we decide

Feedback