Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Gemini 3 Pro supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3 Pro share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 11 to Gemini 3 Pro.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 5
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 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 Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 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 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.7.
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 | Δ | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin← 5.7 | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 43.793%B 37.600%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 6.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 37.600%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.917%B 18.750%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 18.750%. Claude Opus 4.7 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 | Gemini 3 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | 14.30% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | 41.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 56.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 91.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 39.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 90.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 37.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | 15.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 55.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 90.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 76.4% | 80.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | 70.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 37.600%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.