Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
11.0pts
← winning
55.3/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). 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 Pro share 22 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 25 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
16
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
25
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 55.3. 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 $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 17.5Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin→ 1.3Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro31.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 80.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.8
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. ARC-AGI-2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 75.8%B 77.1%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 1.3
    ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 77.1%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGemini 3.1 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
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%21.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%23.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 1495965Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%30.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —56.87%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —13.3%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —37.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —42.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —58.9%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —53.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —73.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
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%68.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —78.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —32.03%Not comparable
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-LCRSource 70.3%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 12.0%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%94.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
HLESource 54.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%45.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%46.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%49.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —36.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —16.700%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%80.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251281Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 80.2%.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 75.8. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.