Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Updated November 13, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public point estimate, 66.41 versus 48.78. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model A
Anthropic
66.41/100
Estimated · Public rank #33
Conditional range 52.1–80.8
- API price per 1M tokens
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): $5 input / $25 output
Gemini 2.5 Pro: $1.25 input / $10 output
- Context window
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 1M
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 1M
- Released
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): April 16, 2026
Gemini 2.5 Pro: March 1, 2025
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 18
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) · Supported: Gemini 2.5 Pro. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 2.5 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
53.8Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)21.9Gemini 2.5 Pro
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
18 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
3 Shared
6 Gemini 2.5 Pro only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 35.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):54.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro:18.8%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 23.8Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):87.6%Gemini 2.5 Pro:63.8%GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 11.2Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):94.2%Gemini 2.5 Pro:83%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 55.7
- Supported · #39/135
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 28.8
- Estimated · #110/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 53.8
- Estimated · #38/162
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 21.9
- Supported · #129/162
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 65.0
- Estimated · #34/180
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 44.8
- Supported · #97/180
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 37.1
- Estimated · #100/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 62.4
- Estimated · #35/67
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 57.8
- #90/157
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 33.2
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 55.7Supported · #39/135 | 28.8Estimated · #110/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 53.8Estimated · #38/162 | 21.9Supported · #129/162 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 65.0Estimated · #34/180 | 44.8Supported · #97/180 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 37.1Estimated · #100/160 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 62.4Estimated · #35/67 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 57.8#90/157 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 33.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.00625
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.0925
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Your workload
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $100.00
- per month
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $32.50
- per month
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Price against score, among all priced models
Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 10 models score at least as high as Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) for the same price or less. The nearest is Claude Opus 5 (score 76.1, also $25.00 per 1M output tokens).
- 34 models score at least as high as Gemini 2.5 Pro for the same price or less. The nearest is Gemini 4 Carbon (score 89.2, also $10.00 per 1M output tokens).
Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.
See Gemini 2.5 Pro on the full price vs performance chartSpecification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 2.5 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Gemini 2.5 Pro
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not published
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
text, image
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 model pageGemini 2.5 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Gemini API model page for gemini-2.5-proDocumented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public point estimate, 66.41 versus 48.78. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0925. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.15.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public point estimate, 66.41 versus 48.78. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 53.8 to 21.9. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 55.7 to 28.8. Gemini 2.5 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.00625 on Gemini 2.5 Pro; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0925; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.15. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro42.01%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro63.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro0.40%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro54.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro83%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro18.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%SourceGemini 2.5 Pro—Not directly comparable
AIME 2024
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro92%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro24.561%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 2.5 Pro0.000%SourceNot directly comparable
27 public results · 3 shared
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 13, 2026