Claude Opus 4.7 vs Nano Banana 2 Lite
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Claude Opus 4.7 is meaningfully stronger at coding (94 vs 0 on our capability index).
- •Nano Banana 2 Lite is open-weights (free to self-host); Claude Opus 4.7 is paid API only.
Specs comparison
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Nano Banana 2 Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓1M | Not announced |
| Input / 1M tokens | $5.00 | ✓Not announced |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25.00 | 33.6 |
| Release date | 2026-04 | 2026-06 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Nano Banana 2 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 87.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | 64.3% | - |
| Arena.ai Text-to-Image Leaderboard | - | Ranked #5 |
| Text-to-Image Elo Score | - | 1251 |
| Single-Image Editing Elo Score | - | 1308 |
| Multiple-Image Editing Elo Score | - | 1294 |
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 Nano Banana 2 Lite if...
- →When cost-per-sample is the primary constraint
- →For workflows requiring 100+ images per session
- →When generation latency must be under 5 seconds
- →For rapid prototyping and exploration