Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Anthropic

72.1/100

Estimated · Public rank #14

90% interval 62.3–82.0

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Gemini 3.7 Flash

Google

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Gemini 3.7 Flash

    Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash

    Gemini 3.7 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. Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash

    Gemini 3.7 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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.

Shared results
3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
18
Gemini 3.7 Flash only
12
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
65.1
Gemini 3.7 Flash
88.7
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
75.1
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
78.6
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
75.8
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
60.0
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not measured
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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 3.7 Flash
$0.00262
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
$0.04875
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
$0.2025
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Gemini 3.7 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. Gemini 3.7 Flash 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.

Cached-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 3.7 Flash

Not published

Google: Introducing Gemini 3.7 Flash

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Not sourced

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini Enterprise, Gemini app via Spark

Google Gemini 3.7 Flash launch

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Reasoning

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

Proprietary

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

2026-04-16

Gemini 3.7 Flash

2026-08-13

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.04875. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.2025.
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 evidence33 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%
    Source

    Gemini 3.7 Flash leads this result

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash14.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash65.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)59.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)0.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GDM-MRCR v2 128K average

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash97%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash87.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash43.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.7 Flash leads this result

  • GDP.pdf (no tools)

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash34.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—
    Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.04875; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.2025. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.