whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSGoogleGemini 3.6 Flash

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 3.4% average lead in benchmarks), but it carries a significant 3.3x price premium. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need top-tier reasoning or code debugging, but for high-volume pipelines, Gemini 3.6 Flash is the smarter business decision.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Model Specs

Claude Opus 4.7

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+5.6%)
64.3%

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

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.2%)
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 3.6 Flash

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
58.7%

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

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)3.3x cheaper
$3.00Input: $1.50 | Output: $7.50
Context Window
1.05M tokens

Frequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. Gemini 3.6 Flash has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 3.3x 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 3.6 Flash which scores 58.7%.

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