The best AI model depends on your use case. We compare Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, and GPT-5.4 across coding, writing, reasoning, multimodal, price, and speed using current benchmark data.
Share This Report
Copy the link, post it, or save a PDF version.
The best AI model depends on your use case. GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are now tied on overall score, GPT-5.4 leads on knowledge and agentic depth, Gemini offers the best value and multimodal profile, and Claude Opus 4.6 remains the strongest writing-first option. Here's how they compare on BenchLM's current data.
| Category | GPT-5.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 94 | 92 | 94 | Tie (GPT-5.4 / Gemini 3.1 Pro) |
| Coding Score | 90.7 | 90.8 | 94.3 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Math Score | 94.5 | 89.4 | 70.7 | GPT-5.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 93 | 90 | 97 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Agentic Score | 93.5 | 92.6 | 87.8 | GPT-5.4 |
| Multimodal Score | 87.9 | 84.2 | 90.4 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Knowledge Score | 97.6 | 92.4 | 95.6 | GPT-5.4 |
| Speed | Reasoning (slower) | Non-reasoning (faster) | Non-reasoning (faster) | Claude / Gemini |
| Price (in/out) | $2.50 / $15 | $15 / $75 | $1.25 / $5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Context Window | 1.05M | 1M | 1M | All comparable |
All three are frontier models. GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are tied at 94 overall, with Claude Opus 4.6 just two points behind at 92. The practical winner still depends on which categories matter most to your workflow.
GPT-5.4 is OpenAI's current flagship and is tied for the top overall score at 94 on BenchLM. It uses chain-of-thought reasoning at inference time, which adds latency but helps on the hardest problems.
Coding. GPT-5.4 still leads on individual coding benchmarks with 84 on both SWE-bench Verified and LiveCodeBench. On BenchLM's current blended coding score it sits at 90.7, just behind Claude Opus 4.6 (90.8) and Gemini 3.1 Pro (94.3). Its raw SWE-bench and LiveCodeBench performance still make it one of the strongest repository-engineering models in the group.
Long-context reasoning. GPT-5.4 scores 95 on LongBench v2 and 97 on MRCRv2, both best-in-class. With a 1.05M-token context window, it can process large codebases and long documents while maintaining accuracy at depth.
Knowledge. 92.8 on GPQA, 93 on MMLU-Pro, and 97 on SimpleQA. GPT-5.4 is the strongest model for factual recall and expert-level question answering, particularly in scientific domains.
Price. At $2.50 / $15 per million tokens, GPT-5.4 is mid-range. Not as expensive as Claude Opus 4.6, but 2x the cost of Gemini 3.1 Pro for input and 3x for output.
Latency. As a reasoning model, GPT-5.4 thinks before it responds. For real-time applications like chat UX, autocomplete, or iterative writing, this delay is noticeable compared to non-reasoning alternatives.
Multimodal. GPT-5.4 is strong on document-heavy vision tasks, but it still trails Gemini 3.1 Pro on the blended multimodal score, 87.9 to 90.4. If images, documents, and mixed-media inputs are central to your workload, Gemini has the cleaner edge.
Claude Opus 4.6 is Anthropic's flagship with an overall score of 92, just two points behind the current co-leaders. It is a non-reasoning model — no chain-of-thought at inference time — which makes it noticeably faster for interactive work.
Math. Claude Opus 4.6 scores 98–99 across AIME 2023–2025 and 95–97 on HMMT. While GPT-5.4 matches it on AIME, Claude's consistency across competition math benchmarks is remarkable for a non-reasoning model.
Writing quality. Claude is widely preferred for long-form writing, editing, and creative work. Its non-reasoning architecture produces more natural, flowing responses without the step-by-step feel that reasoning models sometimes have.
Speed. No chain-of-thought overhead means faster time-to-first-token and lower latency per response. For chatbots, drafting tools, and coding assistants where responsiveness matters, this is a real advantage.
Coding. Claude stays highly competitive on BenchLM's current coding score at 90.8, a tenth of a point above GPT-5.4 and a few points behind Gemini 3.1 Pro. SWE-bench Verified at 80.84 and LiveCodeBench at 76 are still strong, and Claude remains the best fit if you care as much about writing quality and interaction style as pure benchmark wins.
Knowledge depth. Claude leads on HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) at 53 vs GPT-5.4's 48 and Gemini's 40. This is the hardest knowledge benchmark available, designed to test the frontier of what models can reason about.
Price. Claude Opus 4.6 is the most expensive of the three at $15 / $75 per million tokens — 6x GPT-5.4 on input and 5x on output. For high-volume API usage, this adds up fast.
Agentic. Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 65.4 is the weakest of the three flagships. Claude is better suited for single-turn and multi-turn chat than for autonomous agent loops.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is Google's current flagship and is tied with GPT-5.4 for the top overall score at 94 while keeping the best price-to-performance ratio in the frontier tier.
Coding and reasoning balance. Gemini 3.1 Pro now leads this trio on BenchLM's blended coding score (94.3) and reasoning score (97), which is the biggest shift from earlier snapshots.
Multimodal. 95 on MMMU-Pro — the highest of the three flagships — plus 95 on OfficeQA-Pro. Gemini handles images, documents, and mixed-media inputs better than both competitors.
Reasoning. Gemini leads on ARC-AGI2 at 77.1, ahead of GPT-5.4 (73.3) and Claude Opus 4.6 (68.8). This benchmark tests novel reasoning ability, and Gemini's edge here is significant.
Price. $1.25 / $5 per million tokens. That is half the cost of GPT-5.4 and 12x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 on input. For API-heavy applications, Gemini delivers frontier performance at mid-tier pricing.
Individual coding benchmarks. SWE-bench Verified at 75 and LiveCodeBench at 71 are still the weakest raw coding rows of the three. Gemini's lead on the blended coding score comes from the broader calibration layer and a more balanced overall profile, not from winning every direct coding benchmark.
Knowledge. HLE at 40 is notably lower than Claude's 53 and GPT-5.4's 48. On the hardest expert-level questions, Gemini trails meaningfully.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 84 | 80.84 | 75 |
| SWE-bench Pro | 57.7 | 74 | 72 |
| LiveCodeBench | 84 | 76 | 71 |
| HumanEval | 95 | 91 | 91 |
GPT-5.4 leads on SWE-bench Verified and LiveCodeBench individually, but Gemini 3.1 Pro now tops the current blended coding score for this trio at 94.3. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 remain effectively tied on coding category score, and Claude's stronger writing-first interaction style still matters for real-world engineering workflows.
Full coding rankings: Best LLMs for Coding.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA | 92.8 | 91.3 | 97 |
| MMLU-Pro | 93 | 82 | 92 |
| HLE | 48 | 53 | 40 |
| SimpleQA | 97 | 72 | 95 |
| MuSR | 94 | 93 | 93 |
| LongBench v2 | 95 | 92 | 93 |
Knowledge is the most mixed category. Gemini leads GPQA (97), GPT-5.4 leads SimpleQA (97) and LongBench v2 (95), and Claude leads HLE (53). No single model dominates.
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 75.1 | 65.4 | 77 |
| BrowseComp | 82.7 | 84 | 86 |
| OSWorld-Verified | 75 | 74 | 68 |
| MMMU-Pro | 81.2 | 77.3 | 95 |
| OfficeQA-Pro | 96 | 94 | 95 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the clear multimodal leader. Agentic is more mixed: Gemini leads the raw Terminal-Bench 2.0 and BrowseComp rows, while GPT-5.4 leads on OSWorld-Verified and on the blended agentic category score. If your workflows are more visual, Gemini has the cleaner edge. If they are more tool-heavy and reliability-driven, GPT-5.4 currently looks stronger.
| Model | Input (per 1M tokens) | Output (per 1M tokens) | Context Window |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.4 | $2.50 | $15.00 | 1.05M |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | $15.00 | $75.00 | 1M |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | $1.25 | $5.00 | 1M |
For 1 million input tokens and 200K output tokens, the cost is:
Claude Opus 4.6 is 13x more expensive than Gemini 3.1 Pro for the same workload. If cost is a primary constraint, Gemini is the obvious choice at the frontier tier.
All three providers offer cheaper models that are still capable:
| Model | Score | Input | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 86 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 60 | $0.80 | $4.00 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | 41 | $0.15 | $0.60 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a strong mid-range option at 86 overall, much closer to the flagship tier than its price suggests.
The 2026 AI landscape is genuinely three-way competitive. GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are tied at 94 overall, with Claude Opus 4.6 right behind at 92. The gap between them is small enough that the right choice depends on your specific use case, not a universal ranking.
For most developers, the decision comes down to: writing and polished interaction style (Claude Opus 4.6), multimodal work and value (Gemini 3.1 Pro), or long-context reasoning and agent reliability (GPT-5.4).
→ Full leaderboard · Compare any two models · Coding leaderboard · Agentic leaderboard
Is ChatGPT better than Claude in 2026? GPT-5.4 now sits above Claude Opus 4.6 on BenchLM's current overall score, 94 to 92. Claude remains stronger for writing-heavy workflows and is still extremely close on coding, while GPT-5.4 has the better knowledge and agentic profile.
Is Gemini better than ChatGPT or Claude? Gemini 3.1 Pro is tied with GPT-5.4 at 94 overall, ahead of Claude Opus 4.6 at 92. It offers the best price-to-performance ratio at $1.25 / $5 per million tokens and remains the strongest multimodal option of the three.
Which AI is best for coding in 2026? Gemini 3.1 Pro currently leads this trio on BenchLM's coding category score at 94.3, followed by Claude Opus 4.6 at 90.8 and GPT-5.4 at 90.7. GPT-5.4 still tops individual benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and LiveCodeBench at 84 each. See the full coding comparison.
Which AI model is cheapest — ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini? Gemini 3.1 Pro at $1.25 / $5 per million tokens. GPT-5.4 is $2.50 / $15. Claude Opus 4.6 is $15 / $75. For budget use, Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.15 / $0.60) and Claude Haiku 4.5 ($0.80 / $4) are the best low-cost options.
What is the smartest AI model in 2026? GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are tied at 94 overall on BenchLM, with Claude Opus 4.6 at 92. But "smartest" still depends on the task — GPT-5.4 leads on knowledge and agentic depth, Gemini leads on multimodal work and value, and Claude remains the best fit for writing-heavy workflows.
Should I use ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini for writing? Claude Opus 4.6 is widely preferred for long-form writing, editing, and prose. Its non-reasoning architecture produces more natural responses without chain-of-thought overhead. GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are both capable but typically preferred for technical work.
All benchmark data is from our leaderboard. Compare models head-to-head on our comparison pages.
These rankings update with every new model. We send one email a week with what moved and why.
Share This Report
Copy the link, post it, or save a PDF version.
On this page
Which models moved up, what’s new, and what it costs. One email a week, 3-min read.
Free. One email per week.
GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro are one point apart on BenchLM's leaderboard. We compare coding, math, reasoning, multimodal, agentic, pricing, and context window — with Gemini Deep Think as the reasoning wildcard.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 head-to-head: current benchmark scores, pricing, and where each model actually wins. GPT-5.4 now leads overall, while Claude stays extremely close and still has real workflow-specific advantages.
We ranked LLMs for RAG by IFEval, knowledge benchmarks, context window, long-context retrieval accuracy, and pricing. Here are the top models for retrieval-augmented generation in 2026.