Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 31B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Gemma 4 31B supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 31B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 15 to Gemma 4 31B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 7
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 31B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.7 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. Claude Opus 4.7 has 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 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Δ | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B41.6 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B53.3 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B76.9 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 31B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Gemma 4 31B256K | Claude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 59.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 35.26% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 15.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 804 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 28.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 37.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 15.1% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | 75.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | 36.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 43.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 41.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 43.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 29.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 85.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 22.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | -45.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 19.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 81.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 26.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 19.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | 75.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 31B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 31B today?
Claude Opus 4.7: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Gemma 4 31B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.