Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 2.5 Flash #130 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 2.5 Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 2 to Gemini 2.5 Flash.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 25
- Gemini 2.5 Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 2.5 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
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 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 Flash4.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Gemini 2.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 2.5 Flash221 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 2.5 Flash0.50 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Gemini 2.5 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | 14.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | 14.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 68.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 5.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | -42.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 26.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 93.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | 39.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 2.5 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 2.5 Flash today?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Gemini 2.5 Flash: $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.