Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Claude Opus 4.7 is meaningfully stronger at coding (94 vs 75 on our capability index).
- •Gemini 2.5 Flash is meaningfully stronger at speed (90 vs 68).
- •Gemini 2.5 Flash is 94% cheaper on input tokens, which compounds fast on high-volume or agentic workloads.
- •Claude Opus 4.7 has a 1M context window vs 1,048,576 tokens (1M) input; up to 65,535 output - better for whole-repo or long-document work.
Specs comparison
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 2.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google DeepMind |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓1M | 1,048,576 tokens (1M) input; up to 65,535 output |
| Input / 1M tokens | $5.00 | ✓$0.30 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25.00 | $2.50 |
| Release date | 2026-04 | 2025-06 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 87.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | 64.3% | - |
| Context window | - | 1M tokens |
| Input price | - | $0.30/1M |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if...
- →You have a pipeline pinned to Opus 4.7 and need stability
- →Your workload is vision-heavy and benefits from higher-resolution image input
- →You need top-tier coding with 1M context but haven't migrated to 4.8 yet
- →You want documented, broadly available Opus-class behavior
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash if...
- →High-volume, latency-sensitive production workloads
- →Chatbots, extraction, classification, and summarization at scale
- →You need decent reasoning but must control costs