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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $3.75 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
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 / sample | 7.63s | 11.04s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 | 70.5% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 | 74.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 78.4% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 79.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 78.3% | 73.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 79.9% | 78.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 80.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overview
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 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.