Which model is better: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Claude Opus 5.5?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (140ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 72 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 93.2% vs. 78.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Claude Opus 5.5
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$4.00
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 1.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$20.00
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (25.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.300
$0.200
Claude Opus 5.5 is 1.5x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.75
$5.00
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 1.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
1,024k (128k out)
Claude Opus 5.5 (5.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
540ms
680ms
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (140ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
72 tok/s
95 tok/s
Claude Opus 5.5 (+23 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
70.3%
89.9%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+19.6% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
78.5%
93.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+14.7% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
88%
92.1%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+4.1% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
96.2%
98%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+1.8% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
54.3 / 100
57.8 / 100
Claude Opus 5.5 (+3.5 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Claude Opus 5.5?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is cheaper at $3.00/1M input tokens ($15.00/1M output) compared to $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Claude Opus 5.5?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers faster first-token latency at 540ms TTFT (72 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Claude Opus 5.5 compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 70.3% versus 89.9% for Claude Opus 5.5. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 78.5% versus 93.2% for Claude Opus 5.5 (and 96.2% vs 98% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet?
Choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Anthropic) for full-stack repository development, complex code refactoring, and agentic tool use with predictable prompt cache economics — offering a 204k context window, 540ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.300/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
