Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
16.6pts
← winning
55.3/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 28 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
19
Claude Opus 4.7 only
2
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
28
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 71.94 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 38.6 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 43.793% to 36.900%.

Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x 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 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin← 6.8Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro77.1
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro82.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 36.900%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 6.9
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 16.700%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 6.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGemini 3.1 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%56.87%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%13.3%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —23.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —965Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —37.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —42.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —58.9%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —53.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —73.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%32.03%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%78.9%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —68.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 5.1%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%46.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%49.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GPQA-DSource —94.3%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —45.4%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%36.900%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%16.700%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251281Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —80.2%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 71.94 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 36.900%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.