Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 17 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 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 3 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 21
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 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 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 50.83. 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.
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 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | Margin→ 8.1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 91%B 73.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 17.8CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | 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% | 6.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | 31.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | 7.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | 642 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 12.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.46% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | 41.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 0.00% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | 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% | 25.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 82.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 16.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | -15.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 36.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 81.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite wins5 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 91% | 73.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.8% | 75.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | 77.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 73.2%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.2 versus 65.1. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.