Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.5 wins on 24/34 benchmarks
GPT-5.5 wins 24 of 34 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · knowledge.
Category leads
agentic·GPT-5.5reasoning·GPT-5.5arena·Claude Opus 4.7knowledge·GPT-5.5general·GPT-5.5math·GPT-5.5coding·GPT-5.5speed·GPT-5.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.7
#124 by perf·#6 by attention
Gemini 3.5 Flash
#76 by perf·#10 by attention
GPT-5.5
#64 by perf·#9 by attention
Best value
Gemini 3.5 Flash
3.1x better value than Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7
3.4 pts/$
$15.00/M
Gemini 3.5 Flash
10.7 pts/$
$5.25/M
GPT-5.5
3.3 pts/$
$17.50/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$3.61T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
34 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Opus 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashGPT-5.5
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.5 leads by +5.9
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.7
49.2
Gemini 3.5 Flash
27.5
GPT-5.5
55.1
ARC-AGI
GPT-5.5 leads by +1.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.7
93.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash
92.5
GPT-5.5
95.0
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.5 leads by +9.2
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Opus 4.7
75.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
72.1
GPT-5.5
85.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +17.3
Claude Opus 4.7
1494.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash
1476.3
GPT-5.5
1476.8
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.5 leads by +18.9
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.7
37.9
Gemini 3.5 Flash
42.1
GPT-5.5
61.1
Dtbench
GPT-5.5 leads by +2.2
Claude Opus 4.7
91.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash
91.1
GPT-5.5
93.3
Ebr Bench
GPT-5.5 leads by +15.2
Claude Opus 4.7
19.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash
4.8
GPT-5.5
34.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.5 leads by +7.9
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.7
43.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
39.0
GPT-5.5
51.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
GPT-5.5 leads by +12.5
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.7
22.9
Gemini 3.5 Flash
14.6
GPT-5.5
35.4
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.5 leads by +40.8
Claude Opus 4.7
31.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash
26.8
GPT-5.5
72.5
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.5 leads by +15.9
Claude Opus 4.7
73.9
Gemini 3.5 Flash
66.1
GPT-5.5
89.8
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.5 leads by +1.7
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.7
90.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash
94.2
GPT-5.5
95.8
Lmca
GPT-5.5 leads by +2.4
Claude Opus 4.7
61.4
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.5
GPT-5.5
63.9
Mystery Game Puzzles
GPT-5.5 leads by +26.4
Claude Opus 4.7
20.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash
25.1
GPT-5.5
51.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.5 leads by +2.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.7
97.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
95.5
GPT-5.5
100.0
Proofbench
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +4.0
Claude Opus 4.7
54.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash
31.0
GPT-5.5
50.0
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +9.2
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.7
54.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash
72.0
GPT-5.5
62.8
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +3.2
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.7
51.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash
66.2
GPT-5.5
63.0
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +2.9
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Opus 4.7
83.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash
79.3
GPT-5.5
80.6
WeirdML
GPT-5.5 leads by +8.5
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.7
76.4
Gemini 3.5 Flash
62.6
GPT-5.5
84.9
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.5 leads by +7.4
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.5 Flash
37.5
GPT-5.5
44.9
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
GPT-5.5 leads by +4.8
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
70.1
GPT-5.5
74.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
GPT-5.5 leads by +4.6
Gemini 3.5 Flash
50.2
GPT-5.5
54.8
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +49.7
Claude Opus 4.7
1555.3
Gemini 3.5 Flash
1505.5
Deepswe
GPT-5.5 leads by +29.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash
37.4
GPT-5.5
67.0
Exploitbench
GPT-5.5 leads by +20.9
Claude Opus 4.7
26.5
GPT-5.5
47.4
Frontiercode
GPT-5.5 leads by +4.4
Claude Opus 4.7
38.5
GPT-5.5
43.0
Furniture Assembly
GPT-5.5 leads by +15.5
Claude Opus 4.7
4.8
GPT-5.5
20.2
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +3.9
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Claude Opus 4.7
44.1
GPT-5.5
40.2
Mirrorcode
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +7.8
Claude Opus 4.7
31.1
GPT-5.5
23.3
Osworld 2 0
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +5.2
Claude Opus 4.7
18.2
GPT-5.5
13.0
PostTrainBench
Claude Opus 4.7 leads by +0.5
Claude Opus 4.7
24.3
GPT-5.5
23.9
Surface Evolver Bench
GPT-5.5 leads by +30.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash
58.1
GPT-5.5
88.1
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.5 leads by +4.5
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency.
Claude Opus 4.7
80.2
GPT-5.5
84.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 49.2 | 27.5 | 55.1 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 93.5 | 92.5 | 95.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 75.8 | 72.1 | 85.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1494.1 | 1476.3 | 1476.8 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 37.9 | 42.1 | 61.1 |
Dtbench | 91.1 | 91.1 | 93.3 |
Ebr Bench | 19.1 | 4.8 | 34.3 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 43.8 | 39.0 | 51.7 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 22.9 | 14.6 | 35.4 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 31.7 | 26.8 | 72.5 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 73.9 | 66.1 | 89.8 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 90.5 | 94.2 | 95.8 |
Lmca | 61.4 | 55.5 | 63.9 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 20.7 | 25.1 | 51.5 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 97.8 | 95.5 | 100.0 |
Proofbench | 54.0 | 31.0 | 50.0 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.0 | 72.0 | 62.8 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 51.7 | 66.2 | 63.0 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 83.5 | 79.3 | 80.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 76.4 | 62.6 | 84.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | n/a | 37.5 | 44.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | n/a | 70.1 | 74.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | n/a | 50.2 | 54.8 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1555.3 | 1505.5 | n/a |
Deepswe | n/a | 37.4 | 67.0 |
Exploitbench | 26.5 | n/a | 47.4 |
Frontiercode | 38.5 | n/a | 43.0 |
Furniture Assembly | 4.8 | n/a | 20.2 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 44.1 | n/a | 40.2 |
Mirrorcode | 31.1 | n/a | 23.3 |
Osworld 2 0 | 18.2 | n/a | 13.0 |
PostTrainBench | 24.3 | n/a | 23.9 |
Surface Evolver Bench | n/a | 58.1 | 88.1 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. | 80.2 | n/a | 84.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 | |
| $1.50 | $9.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $33.75 | |
| $5.00 | $30.00 | 1.1M tokens (~525 books) | $112.50 |
People also compared