Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 2.5 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash: Overview
Claude Opus 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal language model developed by Anthropic, released on April 16, 2026. It is designed for agentic coding, long-horizon task execution, and enterprise knowledge work. The model supports text and vision inputs and operates with a context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens. It introduces adaptive thinking, which dynamically allocates reasoning based on task complexity, along with configurable effort controls including a new xhigh setting that sits between the existing high and max levels. It achieves 87.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 78.0% on OSWorld-Verified, reflecting strong performance on autonomous software engineering and computer use tasks respectively.
Compared to Claude Opus 4.6, version 4.7 shows improved instruction following and higher reliability in extended agentic tasks. Vision capabilities now support high-resolution inputs up to 2,576px on the long edge (~3.75 megapixels), more than three times the resolution of prior Claude models, enabling finer interpretation of dense diagrams, UI screenshots, and document layouts. These improvements, combined with self-verification on long-running tasks and a new task budget system for controlling agentic loops, make it well-suited for complex software engineering, technical analysis, and multimodal vision workflows.
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Jul 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.300 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $2.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 55.22% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | 24.91s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 110 | 171 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | $0.0005 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 52.6%(10/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology