Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs GPT-5.2
A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
Quick verdict: which should you choose?
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) if you need
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need the lowest output price at $14 per 1M tokens for large-scale multimodal tasks.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need unified processing of files, images, and text with a 400k context window.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need scalable document-level analysis without the highest intelligence score.
- ✓Choose GPT-5.2 if you need to avoid the $150 per 1M token cost of the faster alternative.
Choose GPT-5.2 if you need
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) if you need the higher intelligence index of 53.5.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) if you need the 1M token context window and effective large-context handling.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) if you need the documented 45.78 t/s output speed and strong safety alignment.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) if you need nuanced reasoning on massive text, image, and file inputs.
Verdict
Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) leads on raw intelligence (53.5 vs 38) and maximum context (1M vs 400k) while offering a documented fast variant, but GPT-5.2 undercuts it dramatically on price ($14 vs $150 per 1M tokens) and emphasizes unified file/image/text processing. GPT-5.2 suits budget-conscious document-scale work; Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) suits users prioritizing capability and safety alignment over cost.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs GPT-5.2: side by side
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) | GPT-5.2 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 53.5 | 38 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) |
| Output speed | 46 t/s | — | Tie |
| Output price | $150.00/1M | $14.00/1M | GPT-5.2 |
| Context | 1000K | 400K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Intelligence
Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast)Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) scores 53.5 on the intelligence index compared with GPT-5.2's 38. This gap favors Claude for tasks requiring nuanced or careful reasoning. Both models remain proprietary with unknown parameter counts.
Pricing
Winner: GPT-5.2GPT-5.2 lists output at $14 per 1M tokens versus Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) at $150 per 1M tokens. The fourteen-fold price difference makes GPT-5.2 the clear choice for cost-sensitive workloads. No input prices are provided for either model.
Context & Speed
Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast)Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) offers a 1M token context window and a measured 45.78 t/s output speed, exceeding GPT-5.2's 400k context. GPT-5.2 notes risk of diluted focus in very long inputs while Claude highlights effective large-context handling. Speed data for GPT-5.2 is unavailable.
Multimodal Capabilities
Winner: TieBoth models support files, images, and text as proprietary multimodal systems. GPT-5.2 emphasizes unified multimodal processing and scalable document analysis; Claude notes that multimodal tasks can increase response time. Neither lists native audio or video support.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast)
Pros
- +Strong safety alignment
- +Nuanced and careful reasoning
- +Effective large-context handling
Cons
- –May decline edge-case or risky requests
- –Multimodal tasks can increase response time
- –Large context usage remains resource-heavy
GPT-5.2
Pros
- +Extensive context window
- +Support for files, images, and text
- +Unified multimodal processing
Cons
- –High resource use with maximum context
- –No native audio or video modalities
- –Risk of diluted focus in very long inputs
Summary: Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) vs GPT-5.2
Select GPT-5.2 when budget and unified file/image/text handling at moderate context sizes matter most. Select Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) when maximum intelligence, largest context, and documented speed take priority despite the higher cost. The models serve different price-performance points within the multimodal category.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.7 (Fast) scores higher on intelligence and context size while GPT-5.2 is far cheaper; the better choice depends on whether capability or cost is the priority.