whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSGoogleGemini 3.5 Flash Lite

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

This matchup represents a clear tradeoff between peak intelligence and budget efficiency. Claude Opus 4.7 is noticeably superior (holding a 10.1% average lead in benchmarks), but it carries a massive 11.8x price premium. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need top-tier reasoning or code debugging, but for high-volume pipelines, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the smarter business decision.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Model Specs

Claude Opus 4.7

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+10.1%)
64.3%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+10.2%)
94.2%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00
Context Window
1.05M tokens
Model Specs

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
54.2%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
84%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)11.8x cheaper
$0.85Input: $0.30 | Output: $2.50
Context Window
1.05M tokens

Frequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has a blended cost of $0.85/1M tokens, which is about 11.8x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at $10.00/1M tokens.

Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases) compared to Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite which scores 54.2%.

Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

Open Model Finder