Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 3 27B
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 3 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 3 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 3 27B: 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.
Gemma 3 27B, announced on March 12, 2025, is the largest open-weight model in Google DeepMind’s Gemma 3 family. With around 27 billion parameters, it is multimodal—accepting both text and images as input and producing text outputs. It supports a 128,000-token context window and typically generates up to ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to process multi-page documents, extended conversations, or large batches of images in a single prompt.
The model is instruction-tuned in its “-it” variants for chat, reasoning, and summarization use cases, and it supports structured outputs and function calling. It is multilingual, covering over 140 languages. Deployment is flexible: the full BF16 model requires ~46 GB of VRAM, but quantization-aware training (QAT) versions in 8-bit or 4-bit reduce the footprint significantly, allowing more accessible use outside large-scale clusters. While it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance than smaller Gemma models, it remains lighter and more open than proprietary systems, making it well-suited for research, development, and fine-tuned applications.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 3 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.080 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $0.160 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 67.16% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | 33.60s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 110 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 63.2%(12/19) |
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