Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think #41 (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 Pro Deep Think share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 0 to Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 36
- Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 61.31. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 75.8 against 45.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 75.8% to 45.1%.
Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive).
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 Pro Deep Think |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | Margin← 30.7 | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think45.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 75.8%B 45.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 30.7ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 75.8%; Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think scored 45.1%. 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 Pro Deep Think | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemini 3 Pro Deep ThinkNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think2M | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 61.31. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 75.8% and 45.1%.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemini 3 Pro Deep Think?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 45.1. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 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.