UseRightAI
UseRightAI logo
HomeModelsAsk AIComparePricingWhat's New
UseRightAI
Cut through AI hype. Pick what works.
UseRightAI logo
Cut through AI hype. Pick what works.

Independent AI model tracker. Live pricing, real benchmarks, zero vendor bias.

X (Twitter)LinkedInUpdatesContact

Compare

ChatGPT vs ClaudeGPT-4o vs Claude SonnetClaude vs GeminiDeepSeek vs ChatGPTMistral vs ClaudeGemini Flash vs GPT-4o MiniLlama vs ChatGPTBuild your own →

Best For

CodingWritingDevelopersProduct ManagersDesignersSalesBest Cheap AIBest Free AI

Pricing & Data

API Token PricingPrice HistoryBenchmark ScoresPrivacy & SafetySubscription PlansCost CalculatorWhich AI is Cheapest?

Company

About UseRightAIContactWhat ChangedAll ModelsDisclosuresPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

© 2026 UseRightAI. Independent · Free forever · Not affiliated with any AI provider.

Affiliate links are clearly labeled. See disclosures.

Home/Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash
Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic vs Google

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash

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 For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.8 at the same price.

Last verified Jun 14, 2026/Model data modified Jun 14, 2026
Rankings refresh dailyScored on 6 criteriaNo paid rankings
AnthropicPremium
Input cost
$5.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate

Clear recommendation block

The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.

Best overall model

Claude Opus 4.7

View
Why this recommendation

Claude Opus 4.7 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.

AnthropicPremium
Best for
Highest-ceiling coding, agentic workflows, and deep research
Price
$5.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Best budget model

Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

View
Why this recommendation

Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.

MetaBudget
Best for
High-throughput applications where cost and speed matter more than frontier-level quality, such as chatbots, content classification, and text summarization.
Price
$0.02/1M
Context
16k tokens
Best for speed

Gemini 3.1 Flash

View
Why this recommendation

Gemini 3.1 Flash is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.

GoogleBudget
Best for
High-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter
Price
$0.50/1M
Context
1M tokens

Why this page recommends it

Claude Opus 4.7 leads on coding with a score of 100 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.

Decision notes

Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for coding and research — highest-ceiling coding.

Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash when high-volume everyday ai usage where speed and cost both matter.

Gemini 3.1 Flash is the more cost-efficient option at $0.5/1M — worth considering if token volume is a concern.

Interactive decision lab

Test the recommendation against your priority

Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.

#1Claude Opus 4.790 pts
#2Gemini 3.1 Flash77 pts
Quality first

Claude Opus 4.7

Anthropic / Premium / Apr 26, 2026

90

Best premium model for coding agents and high-stakes engineering work.

Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.

Cost
$5.00/1M
$25.00/1M out
Speed
Deliberate
2/100 score
Context
1M tokens
input window
View model
Data-backed recommendation
Avoid this pick if

You need cheaper high-volume throughput, image generation, or a workflow that must stay inside OpenAI tooling.

Recommended comparisons

The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.

AnthropicPremiumWinner: Claude Opus 4.7

Claude Opus 4.7

Best premium model for coding agents and high-stakes engineering work.

Best use case
Highest-ceiling coding, agentic workflows, and deep research
Input
$5.00/1M
Pricing
Premium
Speed
Deliberate
Context
1M tokens
Coding leaderSWE-bench Pro #1Agentic
GoogleBudgetOption 2

Gemini 3.1 Flash

Best cheap AI for broad day-to-day work — now with 1M context.

Best use case
High-volume everyday AI usage where speed and cost both matter
Input
$0.50/1M
Pricing
Budget
Speed
Very fast
Context
1M tokens
Best budgetFast1M context

Pros

64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro, ahead of GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.4 in current public comparisons

1M context window for large codebases and document-heavy workflows

Strong vision and agentic consistency improvements over Opus 4.6

Cons

Premium pricing is expensive for high-volume workloads

GPT-5.5 has stronger OpenAI ecosystem fit and faster Codex availability for some teams

Explore related decisions

Browse all modelsCompare pricingView Claude Opus 4.7View Gemini 3.1 FlashClaude Opus 4 7Gemini 3 1 FlashBest AI for codingBest AI for writingBest AI for researchCompare models side by side

How we evaluate AI models

UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.

Newsletter

Get updates when claude opus 4.7 vs gemini 3.1 flash changes

Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.

No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.

FAQ

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemini 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 wins on more categories — coding, research, long context. Gemini 3.1 Flash is the better pick when high-volume everyday ai usage where speed and cost both matter. The right choice depends on your specific use case.

Which is cheaper — Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Flash?

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.

Which has a larger context window — Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Flash?

Both Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Flash have the same 1M context window.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding with a score of 96 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash's 68. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.

Which is faster — Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemini 3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3.1 Flash is faster with a very fast speed rating (score: 5) vs Claude Opus 4.7's deliberate rating (score: 2).