Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
No comparison
N/A
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 4 to Gemini 3.6 Flash.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
15
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
23
Gemini 3.6 Flash only
4
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Gemini 3.6 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 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) and Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.6 Flash. That is roughly 3.3x 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.6 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGemini 3.6 Flash
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 7.9Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6MarginNo overlapGemini 3.6 FlashNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapGemini 3.6 FlashNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0MarginNo overlapGemini 3.6 FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapGemini 3.6 FlashNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Gemini 3.6 Flash

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 83%
    Winner: Gemini 3.6 FlashΔ 5
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Gemini 3.6 Flash scored 83%. Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 outputGemini 3.6 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.6 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemini 3.6 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGemini 3.6 Flash1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%83%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%38.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 49.8%46.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 14951421Claude 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 —961Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —24.5%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —77.5%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
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%69.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%52.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
deepSweSource —49%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%69.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%10.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
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%50.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%92.8%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%38.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%23.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%50.2%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%53.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%83.2%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemini 3.6 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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 21, 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.