Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
7.2pts
← winning
64.75/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); 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 and Gemini 3.5 Flash share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 28 to Gemini 3.5 Flash.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.7 only
3
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
28
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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 64.75. 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 32.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.917% to 14.583%.

Claude Opus 4.7 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. Gemini 3.5 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 3.5 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGemini 3.5 Flash
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin← 5.7Gemini 3.5 Flash32.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash77.2
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash53.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash74.7
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash47.2
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash83.8
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7Not 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 4.7B · Gemini 3.5 Flash

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 14.583%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 8.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 14.583%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 38.966%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 4.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 38.966%. 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 3.5 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$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 4.7Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGemini 3.5 Flash1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%95.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%61.85%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%18.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —76.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —83.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —56.5%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —78.4%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —57.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1349Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —42.4%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —37.5%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —47.1%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —42.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —50.1%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —40.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%48.68%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%53.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —76.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.1%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —49.8%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —48.8%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —70.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%69.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
CritPtSource 5.1%13.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MRCRv2Source —77.3%Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource —26.6%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —72.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%50.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%92.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%41.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%22.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%51.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%60.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
GPQASource —92.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —92.7%Not comparable
HLESource —40.2%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%38.966%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%14.583%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%84.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251285Claude Opus 4.7 leads
CharXivSource —84.2%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —83.6%Not comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2Source —33.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%76.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
IFBenchSource —76.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 71.94 to 64.75. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 14.583%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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.