Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.63/100
Margin
16.6pts
← winning
55.04/100
1 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Gemini 3.1 Pro estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 28 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Opus 4.7 only
2
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
28
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 7 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

Gemini 3.1 Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 88 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin← 6.8Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro77.1
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro82.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 36.900%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 6.9
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 16.700%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 6.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MGemini 3.1 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%49.91%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%13.3%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —23.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —962Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —37.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —42.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —0.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%32.03%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%78.9%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 54.5%53.8%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierCodeSource 38.5%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —68.8%Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source —73.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 5.1%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%46.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%49.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GPQA-DSource —94.3%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —45.4%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%36.900%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%16.700%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281285Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —80.2%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1320Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 36.900%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.