Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite: 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 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | 1.86s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 110 | 6 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 86.9% | 89.96% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.19s | 1.32s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 969 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 81 | 10 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0069 | $0.0003 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 91.9%(91/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | 100%(30/30) |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 81.7%(49/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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