Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
1.5pts
← winning
64.75/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.5 Flash share 27 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 19 to Gemini 3.5 Flash.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
27
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
11
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
19
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 66.27 versus 64.75. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78.6 against 53.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 40.2%. Gemini 3.5 Flash does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash. That is roughly 2.8x on output cost alone.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.5 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGemini 3.5 Flash
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 24.7Gemini 3.5 Flash53.9
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 18.7Gemini 3.5 Flash83.8
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 12.8Gemini 3.5 Flash47.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 2.1Gemini 3.5 Flash77.2
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin← 1.1Gemini 3.5 Flash74.7
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash32.9
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash76.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Gemini 3.5 Flash

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 40.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 14.5
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 40.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 55.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9.2
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 55.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 76.2%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 6.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 76.2%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 84.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.8
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 84.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. ARC-AGI-2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 75.8%B 72.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 3.7
    ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 72.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 outputGemini 3.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGemini 3.5 Flash1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%76.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%83.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%78.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%37.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%95.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%42.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 14951349Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —56.5%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —57.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —47.1%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —61.85%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —42.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —50.1%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —40.9%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%55.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%76.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%70.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%53.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SciCodeSource —53.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —48.68%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —49.8%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —48.8%Not comparable
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%72.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-LCRSource 70.3%69.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%13.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MRCRv2Source —77.3%Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource —26.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
GPQASource 94.2%92.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%92.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%40.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%50.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%92.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%41.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%22.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%51.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%60.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —38.966%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —14.583%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%84.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%84.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251285Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.6%Not comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2Source —33.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%76.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
IFBenchSource —76.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 64.75. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 40.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 47.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 53.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 74.7. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.8 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.