Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #31 of 36$0.286 per LiveBench case | #22 of 36$0.161 per LiveBench case |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-08-31-011508720696 · outcome_score · leader | 6.33100% of row best · score · Claude Opus 4.7; 95% CI [4.91001873, 7.74575053]; sessions 37121; observations 1470793; rank 10 | -3.1391% of row best · score · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; 95% CI [-4.00806078, -2.24630473]; sessions 83248; observations 2709356; rank 40 |
| LMArena Document Arenadocument-2026-07-30-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,497.02100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7-thinking; 95% CI [1489.90818265, 1504.13387209]; votes 18793; rank 6 | 1,445.3297% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1439.35538449, 1451.29339146]; votes 45162; rank 23 |
| LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-08-24-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,233.25100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7; 95% CI [1227.87374811, 1238.63530622]; votes 91394; rank 4 | 1,210.4698% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-grounding; 95% CI [1205.32063396, 1215.60669852]; votes 113282; rank 9 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,483.21100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7; 95% CI [1479.33960820, 1487.07067536]; votes 61256; rank 10 | 1,480.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1476.89767236, 1483.30025658]; votes 102763; rank 11 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,316.40100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7-high; 95% CI [1309.56408453, 1323.22870707]; votes 21137; rank 4 | 1,295.3998% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1289.75236576, 1301.03738662]; votes 39412; rank 17 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 80.9799% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-7-xhigh-effort · 11,460 output tokens / case | 81.66100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high · 13,380 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader | 85.49100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 4.7 · 2,578 output tokens / case | 79.8993% of row best · points · Gemini 3.1 Pro (high thinking) · 10,009 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 5 benchmark winsOverall lead | 1 benchmark win |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Claude 4 | Gemini 3 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Claude Opus 4.7 Capabilities
Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Claude Opus 4.7 is $5.00 and Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.7 is $25.00 and Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1,000K and Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Claude Opus 4.7 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 7 protocol-matched benchmarks from 3 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.7 is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.7 is documented with image input; Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.7 supports 128K and Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 66K output tokens.
Do Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.7: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Claude Opus 4.7 has 2 sourced provider routes; Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.