Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 3 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 20
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if coding is the priority; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | Margin← 24.4 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin← 11.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | Margin← 3.6 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.4%B 54%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 15.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.3%B 54.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 78%B 74%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 4OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 74%. 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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | 54% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | 74% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | 26.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | 32.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | 1140 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 634 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins5 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | 54.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | 54.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | 49.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | 40.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.5 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% | 36.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 83.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 17.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | 6.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 30.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 33.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 72.2. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.