Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Gemini 2.5 Flash Google

39.3

Rank #170 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemini 2.5 Flash in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 18.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 75.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 2.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index58.339.3
Released2026-04-142025-04-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.50
Results tracked6654

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
WeirdML76.4%41.9%
LMArena Coding15181424
ALE-Bench1,323661.88
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—28.7%
Aider Polyglot—55.1%
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
Terminal-Bench80.2%17.1%
Vending-Bench 210,937548.84
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—56.2%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
TheAgentCompany—41.1%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
BALROG—33.5%
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
ARC-AGI-275.8%2.5%
SimpleBench61.7%41.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%56.8%
ARC-AGI-193.5%33.3%
CritPt12%1.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061422
DTBench94.7%76.5%
LMCA52.2%27.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25143.03
ForecastBench60.360.6
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
EnigmaEval—2.7%
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%73.1%
LMArena Math14991415
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%4.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%4.2%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—38.5%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%12.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%7.8%
LMArena Expert15211426
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—63.9%
Confabulations—16.8%
GPQA (HELM)—39%

Multimodal Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision13161253
GeoBench—76%
VPCT—46.2%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—
SpatialViz-Bench—36.9%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English14801409
LMArena Chinese15311450
LMArena French15031433
LMArena German14951418
LMArena Japanese14721405
LMArena Korean14641385
LMArena Russian14941415
LMArena Spanish14951421

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14981405
IFEval—89.8%

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query15051419
Fiction.LiveBench—77.8%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text14901417
LMArena Creative Writing14861400
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141137
LMArena Multi-Turn15051408
Short-Story Creative Writing—76.5%
WildBench—81.7%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.3 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 2.5 Flash share?

37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54.

Related comparisons

Go deeper