Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 2.5 Pro share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 20 to Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 0
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 20
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 2.5 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.25 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 2.5 Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 63.8 against 49. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59.4% to 83%. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Pro. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | Margin← 32.0 | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | Margin→ 14.8 | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 |
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 10.0 | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59.4%B 83%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 23.6GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 49%B 63.8%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 14.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 2.069%B 14.138%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 12.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 14.138%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 0.000%B 4.167%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 0.000%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 4.167%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Gemini 2.5 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | 83% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| HLESource | — | 18.8% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 25.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -14.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 39.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
MathGemini 2.5 Pro wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.25 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 83%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 27.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 11.6 versus 1.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.