Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.093750 (rounded ~ $0.09)
Output: $0.093750 (rounded ~ $0.09)
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 15,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.062500 (rounded ~ $0.06)
- Output Cost: $0.093750 (rounded ~ $0.09)
- Total Cost: $0.128125 (rounded ~ $0.13)
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.001971
- Tokens per dollar: 507,317 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 260 tokens per second and 400ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 4 minutes, 27.68 seconds
- Latency: 400 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 260 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 243 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Claude Opus 4.7. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →Gemini 3.1 Pro Google 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.090000
Output: $0.090000
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 15,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.050000
- Output Cost: $0.090000
- Total Cost: $0.117500 (rounded ~ $0.12)
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.001808
- Tokens per dollar: 553,191 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 400 tokens per second and 220ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 2 minutes, 54.06 seconds
- Latency: 220 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 400 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 374 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Gemini 3.1 Pro. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to Claude Opus 4.7| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs Claude Opus 4.7 | vs Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.001813 Best Value | ↓ 98.6% cheaper | ↓ 98.5% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.007344 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 94.3% cheaper | ↓ 93.8% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.009063 | ↓ 92.9% cheaper | ↓ 92.3% cheaper |
| #4 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google
|
$0.011438 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 91.1% cheaper | ↓ 90.3% cheaper |
| #5 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.011438 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 91.1% cheaper | ↓ 90.3% cheaper |
| #6 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Google
|
$0.019219 | ↓ 85% cheaper | ↓ 83.6% cheaper |
| #7 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.021875 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 82.9% cheaper | ↓ 81.4% cheaper |
| #8 |
GPT-5.4 mini
OpenAI
|
$0.022031 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 82.8% cheaper | ↓ 81.3% cheaper |
| #9 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.024063 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 81.2% cheaper | ↓ 79.5% cheaper |
| #10 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.025625 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↓ 80% cheaper | ↓ 78.2% cheaper |
| #11 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.029375 | ↓ 77.1% cheaper | ↓ 75% cheaper |
| #12 |
GPT-5.6 Luna
OpenAI
|
$0.029375 | ↓ 77.1% cheaper | ↓ 75% cheaper |
| #13 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
|
$0.038438 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↓ 70% cheaper | ↓ 67.3% cheaper |
| #14 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.044063 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↓ 65.6% cheaper | ↓ 62.5% cheaper |
| #15 |
Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
|
$0.051250 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↓ 60% cheaper | ↓ 56.4% cheaper |
| #16 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.057500 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↓ 55.1% cheaper | ↓ 51.1% cheaper |
| #17 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.057500 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↓ 55.1% cheaper | ↓ 51.1% cheaper |
| #18 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.064531 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↓ 49.6% cheaper | ↓ 45.1% cheaper |
| #19 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.064531 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↓ 49.6% cheaper | ↓ 45.1% cheaper |
| #20 |
GPT-5.6 Terra
OpenAI
|
$0.073438 (rounded ~ $0.07) | ↓ 42.7% cheaper | ↓ 37.5% cheaper |
| #21 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.076875 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↓ 40% cheaper | ↓ 34.6% cheaper |
| #22 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.092188 (rounded ~ $0.09) | ↓ 28% cheaper | ↓ 21.5% cheaper |
| #23 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
|
$0.117500 (rounded ~ $0.12) | ↓ 8.3% cheaper | Same price |
| #24 |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
|
$0.128125 (rounded ~ $0.13) | Same price | ↑ 9% more |
| #25 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.128125 (rounded ~ $0.13) | Same price | ↑ 9% more |
| #26 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.128125 (rounded ~ $0.13) | Same price | ↑ 9% more |
| #27 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.146875 (rounded ~ $0.15) | ↑ 14.6% more | ↑ 25% more |
| #28 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.146875 (rounded ~ $0.15) | ↑ 14.6% more | ↑ 25% more |
| #29 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.146875 (rounded ~ $0.15) | ↑ 14.6% more | ↑ 25% more |
| #30 |
GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI
|
$0.146875 (rounded ~ $0.15) | ↑ 14.6% more | ↑ 25% more |
| #31 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.218750 (rounded ~ $0.22) | ↑ 70.7% more | ↑ 86.2% more |
| #32 |
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.251563 (rounded ~ $0.25) | ↑ 96.3% more | ↑ 114.1% more |
| #33 |
Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.251563 (rounded ~ $0.25) | ↑ 96.3% more | ↑ 114.1% more |
| #34 |
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
|
$0.256250 (rounded ~ $0.26) | ↑ 100% more | ↑ 118.1% more |
| #35 |
Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic
|
$0.256250 (rounded ~ $0.26) | ↑ 100% more | ↑ 118.1% more |
| #36 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.293750 (rounded ~ $0.29) | ↑ 129.3% more | ↑ 150% more |
| #37 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.437500 (rounded ~ $0.44) | ↑ 241.5% more | ↑ 272.3% more |
| #38 |
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
|
$0.512500 (rounded ~ $0.51) | ↑ 300% more | ↑ 336.2% more |
| #39 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.774375 (rounded ~ $0.77) | ↑ 504.4% more | ↑ 559% more |
| #40 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.774375 (rounded ~ $0.77) | ↑ 504.4% more | ↑ 559% more |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Gemini 3.8 Flash Google
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
o4-mini OpenAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
GPT-5.6 Luna OpenAI
Gemini 3.6 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic
Grok 4.3 xAI
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Terra OpenAI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
For researchers balancing literature synthesis with formal drafting, selecting between Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro often comes down to the specific nature of your writing process. Claude Opus 4.7 is widely favored for drafting stages where tone, nuance, and structural coherence are paramount. Its ability to maintain a consistent academic voice over long-form content makes it a strong partner for turning dense notes into fluid, readable prose. It excels at adhering to complex instructions, such as following specific journal style guides or maintaining a particular argumentative flow.
Conversely, Gemini 3.1 Pro shines in the synthesis phase. If your workflow involves ingesting large quantities of diverse source materials—such as comparing methodology across multiple PDFs or mapping out research gaps—Gemini’s multimodal reasoning is highly effective. It is particularly adept at handling mixed-modal inputs, allowing you to synthesize findings from charts, tables, and supplementary data alongside text. While Claude is often the preferred ‘writer,’ Gemini functions as a powerful ‘research assistant’ that can connect dots across a broad, context-heavy literature base.
Ultimately, teams often find the best results by layering these capabilities: using Gemini for the heavy lifting of synthesis and extraction from the literature, and transitioning to Claude for the final drafting and refinement of the narrative. Both models are capable, but choosing based on whether your current task is ‘discovery and synthesis’ or ‘composition and refinement’ will lead to higher-quality research outputs.