We comprehensively benchmarked Opus 4.7 on document understanding. We evaluated it through ParseBench - our comprehensive OCR benchmark for …

We comprehensively benchmarked Opus 4.7 on document understanding. We evaluated it through ParseBench - our comprehensive OCR benchmark for enterprise documents where we evaluate tables, text, charts, and visual grounding. The results 🧑‍🔬: - Opus 4.7 is a general improvement over Opus 4.6. It has gotten much better at charts compared to the previous iteration - Opus 4.7 is quite good at tables, though not quite as good as Gemini 3 flash - Opus 4.7 wins on content faithfulness across all techniques (including ours) - Using Opus 4.7 as an OCR solution is expensive at ~7c per page!! For comparison, our agentic mode is 1.25c and cost-effective is ~0.4c by default. Take a look at these results and more on ParseBench! https://parsebench.ai/ Anthropic says Opus 4.7 hits 80.6% on Document Reasoning — up from 57.1%. But "reasoning about documents" ≠ "parsing documents for agents." We ran it on ParseBench. → Charts: 13.5% → 55.8% (+42.3) — huge → Formatting: 64.2% → 69.4% (+5.2) → Content: 89.7% → 90.3% (+0.6) → Tables:…

Source: Jerry Liu (X) | 2026-04-16