Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
90
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
49
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #5 · Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Multimodal
+8.9 difference
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$5 / $25
$0.25 / $1.5
N/A
205 t/s
N/A
7.50s
1M
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 90 to 49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 73.2%.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.2 versus 64.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.