Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemma 4 31B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
5.2pts
← winning
61.08/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemma 4 31B share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 9 to Gemma 4 31B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
18
Gemma 4 31B only
9
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 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) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 61.08. 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 coding, where it averages 78.6 against 41.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 26.5%. Gemma 4 31B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.

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 Gemma 4 31B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔGemma 4 31B
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 37.0Gemma 4 31B41.6
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 11.8Gemma 4 31B76.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 7.1Gemma 4 31B52.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1MarginNo overlapGemma 4 31BNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapGemma 4 31BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Gemma 4 31B

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 26.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 28.2
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 94.2%B 84.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9.9
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%. 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.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputGemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 outputGemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemma 4 31BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableGemma 4 31BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MGemma 4 31B256KClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
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%14.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%59.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%15.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 1495804Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%37.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Gert LabsSource —35.26%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —28.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —15.1%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —36.4%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
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%43.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%43.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-RebenchSource —41.6%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —75.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%62.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%1.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
GPQASource 94.2%84.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%26.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%19.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%29.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%85.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%22.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%-45.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%19.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%81.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MMLU-ProSource —85.2%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —38.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
MultimodalGemma 4 31B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%73.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —76.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Gemma 4 31BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%75.6%Gemma 4 31B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 31B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 61.08. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 26.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 31B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 52.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 31B?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 65.1. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Gemma 4 31B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 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.