Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 61.0
- Supported · #21/151
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 50.7
- Supported · #60/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads · intervals overlap
Anthropic
69.94/100
Estimated · Public rank #23
90% interval 51.6–81.5
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 69.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads on the public agentic lane, 61 to 50.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding 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: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
20 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
1 Shared
7 Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 20
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, 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.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 59.6
- Estimated · #27/183
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 58.9
- Supported · #30/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 61.8
- Estimated · #31/181
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 68.6
- Supported · #18/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 49.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 77.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 50.0
- #36/48
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 82.3
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 61.0Supported · #21/151 | 50.7Supported · #60/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 2 public rows | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 59.6Estimated · #27/183 | 58.9Supported · #30/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 61.8Estimated · #31/181 | 68.6Supported · #18/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 49.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 77.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 50.0#36/48 | 82.3Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive): 78%Gemini 3.6 Flash: 83%Normalized gap 5.0Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) source Gemini 3.6 Flash source
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 3.6 Flash
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.135
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification 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 3.6 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Gemini 3.6 Flash
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 3.6 Flash
gemini-3.6-flash
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationCached-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 3.6 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 3.6 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideReasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
Gemini 3.6 Flash
2026-07-21
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
- Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 69.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.135.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash83%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash73.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash49%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash88.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Gemini 3.6 Flash89.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70.11 versus 69.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59.6 to 58.9. 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 3.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads the public agentic tasks lane, 61 to 50.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.00525 on Gemini 3.6 Flash; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.135. 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 3.6 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.