Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Updated October 21, 2026. 79 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for coding: it scores 51.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.6 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite when output tokens cost 10.0x less, or when a solved task costs $0.41 against $2.95.
- Shared results
- 79
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 22
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 scores 51.1 against 33.6.
One benchmark behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 40.7 against 22.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 38.6 against 14.3.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 90.2% against 83.8%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
No call
Only Claude Opus 4.7 has a AIME result, 96.3%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 leads, 89.9% against 85.8%.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Claude Opus 4.7 $0.018, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.0015 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Claude Opus 4.7 $2.95, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.41.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Opus 4.7 51.1 from 1 benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 33.6 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Math, 27.8 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 4.7 75.8% against Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 10.3%, 65.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Opus 4.7 $25.00 against Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $2.50 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- Claude Opus 4.7 takes 1M tokens, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Bars | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 12 | 0 | 1 tie | |
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 6 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 14 | 0 | ||
| Math | 6 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 10 | 0 | ||
| General | 28 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 78 | 0 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index120
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | 1435 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| AA Coding Index | 73.6 | 49.3 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 85.1% | 79.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 82.0% | 75.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 71.0% | 37.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 43.9% | 6.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | 0.0% | Tie |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 68.5% | 50.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.1% | Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 41.3% | Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| GSO-Bench | 44.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | 39.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 765.3 | Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1519 | 1453 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1516 | 1451 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1560 | 1408 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1554 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1577 | 1448 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 40.7 | 22.2 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.8 | 144.9 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 38.6 | 14.3 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.5% | 47.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 23.7% | 7.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 38.5% | 13.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.7% | 43.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 88.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | 29.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $10,937 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index140
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 83.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 85.5% | 83.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 91.4% | 83.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.3% | 18.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% | 83.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| ARC-AGI | 93.5% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | 10.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 41.0% | 21.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Mystery game puzzles | 28.0% | 19.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| EBR-bench | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1506 | 1441 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1521 | 1434 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1508 | 1440 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1336 | 1284 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1337 | 1291 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 96.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 97.8% | 71.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 70.2% | 26.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 31.7% | 0.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| ProofBench | 54.0% | 13.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: math | 1498 | 1434 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1509 | 1433 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index100
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 89.9% | 85.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 85.3% | 84.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 68.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 66.1% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 75.3% | 72.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 70.3% | 68.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 54.9% | 43.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1508 | 1451 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1495 | 1438 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1504 | 1431 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1490 | 1423 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index280
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 51.8% | Only Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 56.1% | 47.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 83.0% | 70.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 67.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| IFBench | 58.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.7% | 76.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 83.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMCA | 52.2% | 37.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Furniture assembly | 33.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1435 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1498 | 1419 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1486 | 1421 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | 1269 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: English | 1496 | 1438 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1480 | 1427 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1531 | 1468 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1495 | 1454 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1474 | 1426 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1464 | 1407 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1503 | 1451 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1494 | 1441 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1494 | 1443 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1489 | 1437 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1505 | 1445 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1505 | 1435 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1492 | 1428 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1474 | 1414 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1322 | 1269 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1371 | 1311 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1327 | 1280 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1309 | 1287 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | 1278 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1326 | 1260 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | Not measured | Only Claude Opus 4.7 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 | Google Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 16, 2026 | July 21, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $5.00 | $0.30 |
| Output $/Mtok | $25.00 | $2.50 |
| Coding index | 51.1 | 33.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | $2.95 | $0.41 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite for coding?
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for coding: it scores 51.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.6 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite. Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite when output tokens cost 10.0x less, or when a solved task costs $0.41 against $2.95.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs $0.30 and $2.50. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Claude Opus 4.7 costs $2.95 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite $0.41.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite comparison based on?
79 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Claude Opus 4.7's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.