Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is OCR, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 78.3% to 73.9%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 80.1% (#6 of 63) for Gemini 3.7 Flash.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.015 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (7.6s vs 11.0s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Gemini 3.7 Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Gemini 3.7 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUndisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.750
Output $/1M$20.00$3.75
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
82.0%
80.1%
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0033
Avg speed / sample7.63s11.04s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
Object Detection (high)
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
73.9%
$0.0032
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
Single value
74.8%
Transcription
91.1%
Structured JSON
86.7%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
78.8%
$0.010
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Single value
71.7%
Transcription
91.9%
Structured JSON
90.6%
Text localization
59.2%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 80.1% (#6 of 63) for Gemini 3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 78.3% against 73.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 11.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.