Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Anthropic, Google
Recommended Pick
GoGemini 3.7 Flash (high)11 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
100.0 value score
66.1 reasoning / $1.50/1M
Lowest Price
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
$0.75/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
66.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
76.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) is 6.7x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) leads Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) by 18.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) wins 11 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Top Pick Go Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $5.00/1M | $0.75/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $3.75/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.00/1M | $1.50/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Release Date | Feb 5, 2026 | Aug 13, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 515.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 6354ms |
| Latency | — | 6354ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 10.7 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 47.3 | 66.1 |
| Intelligence | 38.8 | 56.0 |
| Coding | — | 76.1 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.0% | 94.5% |
| HLE | 19.1% | 47.9% |
| SciCode | 45.7% | 56.8% |
| LCR | 62.3% | 80.0% |
| IFBench | 44.6% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 84.8% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 48.5% | — |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) offers the best value at $0.75/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 66.1 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) reaches a 76.1 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
