Claude Opus 4.7 wins on coding (96 vs 68) and writing quality. Gemini 3.1 Flash wins on price ($0.5 vs $5/1M input). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.8 at the same price.
The safest Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Gemini 3.1 Flash handles the same job for about 88% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on coding with a score of 96 vs 68 for Gemini 3.1 Flash.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.5/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for Claude Opus 4.7.
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Go with Claude Opus 4.7 if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets highest-ceiling coding, agentic workflows, and deep research.
Switch to Gemini 3.1 Flash when your work is mostly high-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is the more cost-efficient option at $0.5/1M input — Claude Opus 4.7 costs 10x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / May 27, 2026
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.
Where the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.8 at the same price.
Best cheap AI for broad day-to-day work — now with 1M context.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 96 | 93 | 95 |
| Gemini 3.1 FlashGoogle | $0.50/1M | $3.00/1M | $11 | 1M tokens | Very fast | 68 | 75 | 76 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash: 96/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
Anthropic's previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Opus 4.8. Still the second-best coding model publicly available at the same $5/$25 price.
You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.
Superseded by Opus 4.8 (May 27, 2026) which scores 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro vs 64.3% here — at the same price. For existing pinned integrations Opus 4.7 still works well, but new deployments should use Opus 4.8.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.7 page.
The value option for Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash: about 88% less per token than Claude Opus 4.7, at 68/100 on coding. Worth starting here and moving up only if the output disappoints.
Fast, low-cost model with a 1M token context window — the best budget default for teams running high prompt volumes.
You need premium reasoning depth or the highest coding benchmark scores.
The best all-around budget model for most teams. Faster than its predecessor, cheaper, and with a 1M context window that outclasses every other budget option.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Gemini 3.1 Flash page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 4.7 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Gemini 3.1 Flash is the better pick when your work is mostly high-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 4.7 is aimed at highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, Gemini 3.1 Flash at high-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.5/1M input and $3/1M output. Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Flash have the same 1M context window.
Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding with a score of 96 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash's 68 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is faster with a very fast speed rating (score: 5) vs Claude Opus 4.7's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 4.7 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Opus 4.8 launched at the same $5/$25 price with 69.2% SWE-Bench Pro and parallel subagents. No reason to prefer Opus 4.7 for new integrations — use Opus 4.8 instead. Avoid it if you are starting a new integration — Opus 4.8 is strictly better at the same price. That is the main case for looking at Gemini 3.1 Flash instead.
Not as sharp as premium models on hard reasoning or complex coding. May need more validation on nuanced technical tasks. Avoid it if you need premium reasoning depth or the highest coding benchmark scores. Against Claude Opus 4.7 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (96 vs 68).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Opus 4.7 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out); Gemini 3.1 Flash runs $11.00 (at $0.5/1M in and $3/1M out). That is a $89.00/month difference — Gemini 3.1 Flash is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Opus 4.7 for highest-ceiling coding and agentic workflows, with Gemini 3.1 Flash handling high-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Gemini 3.1 Flash at $0.5/1M and reserving Claude Opus 4.7 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.