Claude 4.7 Opus vs GPT-5
Anthropic's Claude 4.7 Opus versus OpenAI GPT-5: reasoning benchmarks, context window, agentic coding, multimodal capabilities, and pricing comparison.
Anthropic's most advanced model for coding and knowledge work
Google's speed tier, positioned to solve complex agentic tasks at scale
There's no independent cross-benchmark, and the two companies' own tables mostly use different tests; only the rows with a common anchor (Claude Opus 5) — GDPval-AA v2, OSWorld 2.0, and Terminal-bench 4.0 — can defensibly be placed side by side, so declaring a 'clear winner' would be misleading. The numbers show that for high-volume, speed- and unit-cost-sensitive agent workflows, Gemini 3.8 Flash being ~13x cheaper per input/output token and its 'agentic tasks at scale' positioning make it a sensible choice. For one-off hard code problems, architectural decisions, and hours-long unsupervised tasks, Fable 5.1's edge on Terminal-Bench-Science and GDPval-AA v2, plus Cognition/Devin's launch-day switch, is a stronger signal. On caching, don't jump to conclusions: Gemini's read price of $0.075/M is cheaper than Fable's $0.25/M but adds an hourly storage line item — work the decision out against your own usage profile. Keep in mind: Claude Opus 5.5 (September 22, 2026) now sits 'at roughly Fable 5.1's level on most tasks, at 40% lower cost than Opus 5' — if budget is tight, you should also try it as a third option. The most accurate approach: test both models back-to-back on the same task set, in your own codebase, via GitHub Copilot.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Ease of Learning | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Ecosystem | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Community | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Job Market | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Future-Proof | 7/10 | 7/10 |
# Claude Fable 5.1 - Agentic call via Python SDK (High effort by default)
import anthropic
client = anthropic.Anthropic() # Read from the ANTHROPIC_API_KEY env var
response = client.messages.create(
model="claude-fable-5-1",
max_tokens=4096,
tools=[
{
"type": "bash_20250124",
"name": "bash"
}
],
messages=[
{
"role": "user",
"content": (
"Find the flaky failing test in the repo, explain the root "
"cause at the disassembly level, and prepare a fix PR."
),
}
],
)
for block in response.content:
if block.type == "text":
print(block.text)
elif block.type == "tool_use":
print(f"[tool: {block.name}] input={block.input}")
# To benefit from cache-read, mark the system prompt with cache_control:
# system=[{"type": "text", "text": LONG_CODEBASE_CONTEXT,
# "cache_control": {"type": "ephemeral"}}]
# → repeated reads are billed at $0.25/M tokens (75% cheaper than Fable 5)# Gemini 3.8 Flash - Agent call at scale via Python SDK
from google import genai
from google.genai import types
client = genai.Client() # Read from the GEMINI_API_KEY env var
response = client.models.generate_content(
model="gemini-3.8-flash",
contents=(
"Process the 1000-row CSV, assign a category to each row, "
"and return the batched result as JSON."
),
config=types.GenerateContentConfig(
temperature=0.2,
max_output_tokens=2048,
),
)
print(response.text)
# For high-volume/scale jobs, prefer the batch endpoint:
# client.batches.create(model="gemini-3.8-flash", src="gs://bucket/jobs.jsonl")
# Input $0.75/M, output $3.75/M (promotional price valid through Dec 31, 2026;
# pre-announced to rise to $1.50/$7.50 starting Jan 1, 2027)There's no independent cross-benchmark, and the two companies' own tables mostly use different tests; only the rows with a common anchor (Claude Opus 5) — GDPval-AA v2, OSWorld 2.0, and Terminal-bench 4.0 — can defensibly be placed side by side, so declaring a 'clear winner' would be misleading. The numbers show that for high-volume, speed- and unit-cost-sensitive agent workflows, Gemini 3.8 Flash being ~13x cheaper per input/output token and its 'agentic tasks at scale' positioning make it a sensible choice. For one-off hard code problems, architectural decisions, and hours-long unsupervised tasks, Fable 5.1's edge on Terminal-Bench-Science and GDPval-AA v2, plus Cognition/Devin's launch-day switch, is a stronger signal. On caching, don't jump to conclusions: Gemini's read price of $0.075/M is cheaper than Fable's $0.25/M but adds an hourly storage line item — work the decision out against your own usage profile. Keep in mind: Claude Opus 5.5 (September 22, 2026) now sits 'at roughly Fable 5.1's level on most tasks, at 40% lower cost than Opus 5' — if budget is tight, you should also try it as a third option. The most accurate approach: test both models back-to-back on the same task set, in your own codebase, via GitHub Copilot.
Get Free ConsultationThere's no single answer — there's no independent cross-benchmark, and the two companies' own tables mostly use different tests; only the rows with a common anchor (Claude Opus 5) — GDPval-AA v2, OSWorld 2.0, and Terminal-bench 4.0 — can defensibly be placed side by side. In Anthropic's data, Fable 5.1 leads on Terminal-Bench-Science and GDPval-AA v2; in DeepMind's data, Gemini 3.8 Flash is near or ahead of Opus 5 on Terminal-bench 2.1 and DeepSWE v1.1, but clearly behind on Terminal-bench 4.0. It depends on the task type — running your own measurement via GitHub Copilot is the most reliable approach.