Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.7
- 62.7
- Supported · #15/183
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 70.22 versus 60.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on the public coding lane, 62.7 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.7 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
8 Claude Opus 4.7 only
5 Shared
5 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 8
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7
- 58.5
- Supported · #33/151
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7
- 64.9
- Estimated · #26/181
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- 60.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 62.7Supported · #15/183 | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 4 public rows | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| Agentic | 58.5Supported · #33/151 | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 64.9Estimated · #26/181 | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 60.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 76.1#16/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Claude Opus 4.7: 85.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 79.0%Normalized gap 6.1Claude Opus 4.7 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.7: 89.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 85.8%Normalized gap 4.1Claude Opus 4.7 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source
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
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.7 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7
claude-opus-4-7
Anthropic model ID documentationGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7
Not published
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideReasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.7
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7
2026-04-16
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
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
- Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 70.22 versus 60.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0225. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.037.
- 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 evidence18 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.765.59%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.720.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.713.9%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.768.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.771.00%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Opus 4.782.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.738.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.785.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.782.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 4.7—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 70.22 versus 60.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 leads the public coding lane, 62.7 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 58.5 to 43.4. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.7 and $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0225; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.037. Claude Opus 4.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.