Introduction
Anthropic released Claude Opus 4.7 on April 16, 2026. A week later, OpenAI followed with ChatGPT 5.5 on April 23, 2026. Both are flagship models. Both cost $5 per million input tokens. Neither is a clear overall winner. The difference lies in the task.
We evaluated both across six tasks that corporate professionals rely on daily and scored each on a scale of 10. Scores are based on consistent patterns across multiple independent hands-on tests and benchmark comparisons, not a single test result.
1. Creative Writing and Content Drafting
Claude Opus 4.7 produced writing that felt genuinely human. The tone was sharp, the structure unexpected, and it avoided the generic phrasing that makes most AI content easy to spot. ChatGPT 5.5 produced a competent, well-organised piece, but the voice was noticeably more mechanical.
For emails, blog drafts, reports, and anything where tone and originality matter, Opus 4.7 is the stronger tool.
Claude Opus 4.7: 8.5/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 6/10
2. Coding
Both models produced working code on the same Python task. Opus 4.7 went further: it handled a wider range of input patterns, included specific error handling, and added terminal arguments so files could be passed directly without editing the code. ChatGPT 5.5 produced a functional but more basic output.
Benchmark results align with this. Opus 4.7 scores 64.3% on SWE-bench Pro versus ChatGPT 5.5 at 58.6%. ChatGPT 5.5 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 82.7% versus 69.4% for Opus 4.7, making it better for shell and DevOps automation specifically. One practical note: ChatGPT 5.5 uses 72% fewer output tokens on equivalent coding tasks, which matters for teams running AI workflows at scale.
Claude Opus 4.7: 8/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 7/10
3. Research and Planning
ChatGPT 5.5 was stronger here. It included "why it matters" context alongside each research point, making the output immediately actionable rather than just a list. Opus 4.7 covered the same ground thoroughly but as a denser, less guided response.
ChatGPT 5.5 also scores 84.4% on BrowseComp, a benchmark testing agentic web research, confirming its edge for research-heavy workflows.
Claude Opus 4.7: 7/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 8/10
4. Data Analysis
Given a table of monthly revenue, customer acquisition cost, churn, and conversion rate, ChatGPT 5.5 identified the most critical issue upfront: customer acquisition cost rising faster than revenue. Opus 4.7 was built toward the same conclusion more gradually. Both identified the same risks. The difference was directness, which, in a business setting where decisions move quickly, gives ChatGPT 5.5 a practical advantage.
Claude Opus 4.7: 7/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 8.5/10
5. Image and Document Analysis
Opus 4.7 received a significant upgrade: visual resolution increased threefold to 3.75 megapixels, making it stronger on dense screenshots, diagrams, and document-heavy tasks. ChatGPT 5.5 presented visual analysis using structured tables and lists that were easier to scan immediately. For deep document review, Opus 4.7 is more thorough. For quick visual reviews in meetings, ChatGPT 5.5 is faster to read.
Claude Opus 4.7: 8/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 8/10
6. Everyday Reasoning and Problem Solving
On a startup planning task, ChatGPT 5.5 produced a full month-by-month breakdown with specific focus areas and trade-off analysis for each option. Opus 4.7 covered the same ground but with less granularity. On formal benchmarks, both are nearly identical: Opus 4.7 scores 94.2% on GPQA Diamond versus ChatGPT 5.5 at 93.6%. The real-world difference is in how each model structures its output, not raw reasoning capability.
Claude Opus 4.7: 7/10 | ChatGPT 5.5: 8/10
Conclusion
Claude Opus 4.7 is the better tool for writing, coding, and tasks where depth and nuance matter. ChatGPT 5.5 is the better tool for research, data analysis, structured reasoning, and tasks where directness and presentation clarity matter.
