Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
Gemini 2.5 Pro
67
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · Gemini 2.5 Pro unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+9.1 difference
Knowledge
+27.4 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$5 / $25
$1.25 / $5
N/A
117 t/s
N/A
21.19s
1M
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 68.2 against 40.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 18.8%.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Pro. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 18.8%.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.2 versus 40.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.9 versus 63.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.