Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Ultra
Anthropic's coding-first flagship against Google's multimodal giant — a comparison that comes down to code quality versus scale.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Ultra: side-by-side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 Ultra | |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | |
| Released | 16 April 2026 | April 2026 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 2M tokens |
| Modalities | Text + high-resolution images | Text, image, audio, video (native) |
| API price (per 1M) | $5 in / $25 out | ~$2 in / $12 out (Pro tier) |
| Built for | Code quality, vision, long-context work | Multimodal understanding, very long documents |
| Standout | 87.6% SWE-bench Verified | 2M context · native video + audio |
Benchmark comparison
On coding, Opus 4.7 has a clear lead. The two publish on different SWE-bench variants, but the gap is wide enough that the conclusion holds.
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 87.6% | — | Opus 4.7 |
| SWE-bench Pro | 64.3% | 54.2% | Opus 4.7 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 2M tokens | Gemini 3.1 |
| Price per 1M output | $25 | ~$12 | Gemini 3.1 |
Key takeaway
Opus 4.7 wins capability on code — over 10 points ahead on SWE-bench Pro. Gemini 3.1 wins on scale and economics: double the context window and roughly half the cost per token.
Where Claude Opus 4.7 wins
Opus 4.7 leads every coding benchmark the two share and posts an 87.6% SWE-bench Verified score that tops the field. It also has very strong vision — high-resolution still images up to 2,576 pixels on the long edge — making it excellent for dense screenshots, diagrams and code review. For software-engineering quality and detailed visual analysis, Opus is the stronger model.
Where Gemini 3.1 Ultra wins
Gemini 3.1 Ultra has a 2M-token context window — double Opus 4.7's — letting it reason over entire codebases or hundreds of pages without chunking. It is also the only one of the two with native video and audio processing: it handles those formats directly, with no transcription step, preserving tone and timing. And at roughly $2/$12 per 1M tokens it costs about half as much as Opus. For multimodal work, whole-document reasoning and high-volume budgets, Gemini wins.
Price comparison
Processing one million input and one million output tokens costs $30 on Claude Opus 4.7 versus roughly $14 on Gemini 3.1 Pro. Opus also has a tokenizer that can generate up to 35% more tokens per request, widening the real-world gap further. Gemini is the clear economy choice; Opus charges a premium for its coding edge.
Which should you use?
- Software engineering and code review → Claude Opus 4.7.
- Video, audio and multimodal analysis → Gemini 3.1 Ultra.
- Very large documents or whole codebases → Gemini 3.1 Ultra (2M context).
- High-volume, cost-sensitive workloads → Gemini 3.1 Ultra.
- High-resolution image and diagram analysis → Claude Opus 4.7.
Full Claude Opus 4.7 overview Full Gemini 3.1 overview
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemini 3.1 Ultra?
Claude Opus 4.7 leads on coding — 87.6% on SWE-bench Verified versus Gemini's 54.2% on SWE-bench Pro — and on vision quality. Gemini 3.1 Ultra leads on context window (2M vs 1M tokens), native video and audio processing, and price. The right choice depends on whether you need code quality or multimodal scale.
Which has a bigger context window?
Gemini 3.1 Ultra has the bigger context window: 2 million tokens versus Claude Opus 4.7's 1 million tokens.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 3.1 is cheaper. Gemini 3.1 Pro costs roughly $2 per million input tokens and $12 per million output tokens, versus $5 and $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Which is better for video and audio?
Gemini 3.1 Ultra. It processes video, audio and text together natively with no transcription step, which Claude Opus 4.7 does not do — Opus focuses on text and high-resolution still images.