Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Side-by-side pricing, context windows, and capabilities, plus a verdict on which one to pick.

Quick verdict

Gemini 3.1 Pro at $2/$12 is less than half of Opus 4.7's $5/$25, but these two are aimed at different jobs. Opus is the model you pick when a single hard task has to come back right: deep refactors, long agentic runs, work where a wrong answer costs more than the tokens. Gemini's edge beyond price is input breadth: video and audio natively, plus a preview label that makes its pricing provisional. Our take: Opus for the critical path, Gemini for the volume path. Plenty of real stacks run both, routed by task.

Claude Opus 4.7 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Provider Anthropic Google
Input price $5/Mtok $2/Mtok
Output price $25/Mtok $12/Mtok
Context window 1,000,000 1,048,576
Max output tokens 128,000 65,536
Input modalities text, image, pdf text, image, video, audio, pdf
Capabilities vision, tools, reasoning, structured output vision, tools, reasoning, structured output
Released 2026-04-14 2026-02-19

Estimate costs for your workload →

What are you actually paying for with Opus?

Opus 4.7 costs $5/Mtok in and $25/Mtok out. Gemini 3.1 Pro costs $2 and $12. On 1M input plus 200K output daily, that's roughly $300/month for Opus against $132/month for Gemini. So the question isn't which is cheaper; it's whether Opus's premium buys anything your workload needs.

What it buys, in our experience, is dependability on the hardest tasks. Opus 4.7 is the model we trust with long agentic coding sessions: multi-hour runs, dozens of tool calls, changes spanning many files. Its failure mode is rarer and more recoverable. It also allows 128K output tokens per response, double Gemini's 65K, which matters exactly on those big tasks.

That premium is wasted on easy work. Classification, extraction, routine drafting: a cheaper model does these fine, and paying Opus rates for them is how API bills get silly.

Where does Gemini 3.1 Pro pull ahead?

Three places. Price, obviously, at less than half of Opus on both sides.

Input breadth, decisively. Gemini takes video and audio natively along with text, images, and PDFs. Opus stops at text, images, and PDFs. Any pipeline that touches recordings, calls, or screen captures needs either Gemini or an extra transcription stage in front of Opus.

And throughput economics. If you're processing millions of documents at tolerable quality, Gemini's rate turns projects that were uneconomical at Opus prices into routine batch jobs.

One asterisk: the preview label. Google adjusts preview pricing and behavior on the way to GA, so treat $2/$12 as provisional.

Can you run both?

Yes, and mature stacks often do. The pattern that works: route by task criticality. The critical path, agentic coding, customer-visible generation, anything where an error is expensive, goes to Opus 4.7. The volume path, ingestion, summarization, media processing, goes to Gemini. A simple router keyed on task type captures most of the savings while protecting the work that justifies flagship spend.

If you'd rather run one model, decide by your dominant workload and accept the tradeoff at the edges.

Which should you pick?

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if:

  • Hard agentic coding is the core of your workload
  • Output quality failures are expensive
  • You need up to 128K tokens in one response

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if:

  • Volume economics dominate your decision
  • You process video or audio natively
  • Preview-stage churn is acceptable for a 55%+ saving

Frequently Asked Questions

How much more expensive is Claude Opus 4.7 than Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Roughly 2.2x: $5/$25 per Mtok against $2/$12. On 1M input and 200K output tokens per day, Opus costs about $300/month and Gemini about $132/month. Gemini's pricing carries a preview caveat and may change at GA.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemini 3.1 Pro for coding?

For long agentic coding sessions and complex multi-file work, Opus 4.7 has been the more dependable model in our use, and its 128K output ceiling doubles Gemini's 65K. For shorter coding tasks the gap narrows, and Gemini's much lower price makes it attractive for high-volume, lower-stakes code work.

Can Claude Opus 4.7 process video input?

No. Opus 4.7 accepts text, images, and PDFs. Gemini 3.1 Pro accepts video and audio natively in addition to those, which makes it the only option of the two for direct media processing.

Should I use both Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro together?

Many production stacks do exactly that: Opus on the critical path (agentic coding, customer-facing output) and Gemini on the volume path (ingestion, summarization, media). A simple task-type router captures most of the cost savings while keeping quality where it is expensive to lose.

More comparisons

Spec data last synced August 28, 2026 from models.dev. Pricing can change; confirm on the provider's page before committing.