UAB
Home/Compare
Compare
Live · updated continuously
Compare · pick a model

Compare the models people actually argue about.

Use shared tests, visible gaps, and close-call warnings before turning a benchmark lead into a public claim.
Selected models · 3
Shared benchmarks · 5
Current leader · Claude Opus 4.7
Compare controls

Keep the recommendation honest.

Use case and source filter stay visible up top. Edits, saves, follows, and links stay available without running the page.

Current frameBest for this use caseCoding copilot · All public sources
What should win?
Preset

Keep the same models, change the use case, and recompute the recommendation without resetting the page.

Sources
Models to compare

Keep the compare set tight. Add one model at a time, then prune aggressively.

3 / 6 models
Workspace utilities

Save, follow, or copy this exact setup only after the comparison looks right.

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Save or share this workspacefollow it, copy it, or reopen it later
Open reportOpen workspaces
Compare · Coding copilot · best for this use case

Claude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.

Claude Opus 4.7closest: GPT-5.5
Visible tradeoffs

The current evidence supports a shortlist, not a single winner.

Shared tests
5
Close calls
0
Sources
All public
Open evidence pageInspect disagreement
Decision detail

Read this page as a workspace for choosing between top models, not as a universal crown. The current frame is Coding copilot under best for this use case.

Why the leader is ahead
Professional reasoning
Where the evidence is thin
0 close-call benchmarks and 57 missing missing leader rows keep this from reading as settled.
What to do next
Inspect decisive benchmarks first, then open the disagreement page or head-to-head pages if the top line still feels too narrow.
Open evidence pageInspect benchmark disagreement
5 of 114 benchmarks
BrowseComp
OFF · %
Search · Search / tool use
79.3%33.3%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
79.3%
Percentile
33.3%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
claude-opus-4-7
Source row
84.4%83.3%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
84.4%
Percentile
83.3%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gpt-5-5
Source row
85.9%100%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
85.9%
Percentile
100%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gemini-3-1-pro
Source row
66.7% spread
HiL-Bench
SL · %
Code · Coding
27.7%80%
exact directverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
27.7%
Percentile
80%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
claude-opus-4-7
Source row
29.1%100%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
29.1%
Percentile
100%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
GPT-5.5
Source row
20.3%40%
exact directverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
20.3%
Percentile
40%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gemini-3-1-pro
Source row
60% spread
Terminal-Bench 2.0
OFF · %
Code · Coding
69.4%66.7%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
69.4%
Percentile
66.7%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
claude-opus-4-7
Source row
82.7%100%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
82.7%
Percentile
100%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gpt-5-5
Source row
68.5%50%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
68.5%
Percentile
50%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gemini-3-1-pro
Source row
50% spread
Humanity's Last Exam
OFF · %
Text · Reasoning / math / science
46.9%100%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
46.9%
Percentile
100%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
claude-opus-4-7
Source row
41.4%71.4%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
41.4%
Percentile
71.4%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gpt-5-5
Source row
44.4%85.7%
Officialmanual verifiedmanual verified
Row details
Raw value
44.4%
Percentile
85.7%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
exact (1.00)
Source label
gemini-3-1-pro
Source row
28.6% spread
Search Arena
AR · rating
Search · Search / tool use
1,21190%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,211
Percentile
90%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
claude-opus-4-7
Source row
1,22596.7%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,225
Percentile
96.7%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
gpt-5.5-search
Source row
1,21086.7%
exact aliasverified runtime
Row details
Raw value
1,210
Percentile
86.7%
Last updated
recent
Eligibility
headline eligible
Identity
provider alias (0.92)
Source label
gemini-3.1-pro-grounding
Source row
10% spread
1-5 of 5
Page 1 of 1
Decisive benchmarks

What is doing the visible work

BrowseComp
OFF · spread 66.7 · %
HiL-Bench
SL · spread 60.0 · %
Terminal-Bench 2.0
OFF · spread 50.0 · %
Decision pressure

What changes the winner

Claude Opus 4.7
57 visible benchmark gaps still leave room for the result to move.
GPT-5.5
24 visible benchmark gaps still leave room for the result to move.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
101 visible benchmark gaps still leave room for the result to move.
Coverage gaps

Where evidence is missing

Claude Opus 4.7
Missing visible evidence on this compare surface
57
GPT-5.5
Missing visible evidence on this compare surface
24
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Missing visible evidence on this compare surface
101
Preset interpretation

How this weighting reads the field

The current decision mode is grounded in the Coding copilot preset. This keeps the compare page connected to a visible use case instead of an unspoken “overall winner” claim.

score = 1.45 × coding + 1.05 × reasoning math science + 0.80 × long contextcoverage floor = 55% · recency window = 120 days
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
95.1%
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
92.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
62.8%
Go deeper

Open the disagreement page that answers your next question

Debate Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5Debate Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemini 3.1 ProDebate GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Share or publish this compare resultlinks, copy, and advanced framings
Share this report

Share the recommendation with the source data attached.

Use the report for the full source trail, or the card image when the post needs a clean preview.

Model compareClaude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.

Runner-up: GPT-5.5 · 0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.

Report/artifacts/compare?models=claude-opus-4-7,gpt-5-5,gemini-3-1-pro&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Card image/api/og?kind=compare&models=claude-opus-4-7,gpt-5-5,gemini-3-1-pro&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Public links

Open or copy the stable surfaces

The report is the canonical source page. The card image is the compact preview for embeds, screenshots, and social cards.

Open reportOpen card preview
Copy-ready text

Use the exact public framing

Each copy action keeps the recommendation attached to source data instead of forcing you into a blank composer.

Advanced framings and X composerNeutral, contrarian, open-model, and skeptical variants
Model compare

Pick the voice before you post

Use the framing variants only when you need them. The report and the public copy actions above should handle most cases.

Neutral analystLead with the recommendation, then attach the reason and warning.Claude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
ContrarianPush against the easy read and keep the strongest alternative live.Contrarian take: Claude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
Open-model angleBias the framing toward open weights and source transparency.Open-model angle: Model compare · Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Don't trust the headlineLead with the warning before you let the claim travel.Don't trust the headline: Model compare · Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
X composer

Compose a post that keeps the warning attached

The post shell always exposes the recommendation, why, warning, source link, and an optional discussion question.

HeadlineClaude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
WhyOFF · spread 66.7 · %
Warning0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.
Source link/artifacts/compare?models=claude-opus-4-7,gpt-5-5,gemini-3-1-pro&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Discussion questionIf you still back GPT-5.5, which test should matter more?
PreviewOver 280
Claude Opus 4.7 leads this compare set for coding copilot.
OFF · spread 66.7 · %
Warning: 0 shared benchmarks are still too close to call, so the win stays conditional. This compare uses all public sources, with provider-official evidence labeled separately.
Source data: /artifacts/compare?models=claude-opus-4-7,gpt-5-5,gemini-3-1-pro&mode=best-for-this-use-case&preset=coding-copilot
Question: If you still back GPT-5.5, which test should matter more?
Open in XOpen card preview
Reading guide

How to read this workspace

Who wins most oftenBenchmarks with one clear percentile leader.Missing evidenceBenchmarks where a top model has no visible score.Decision readA public claim tied to an explicit use case and source filter.