Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 45 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.1 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.3 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3.1 Pro's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 31.8 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 2.069% to 36.900%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. Gemini 3.1 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 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 30.2 | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 2.069%B 36.900%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 34.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 0.000%B 16.700%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 16.7FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 0.000%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Gemini 3.1 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 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 965 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.87% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 53.8% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 32.03% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 45.4% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 46.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 32.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 55.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.9% | Not comparable |
MathGemini 3.1 Pro wins2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 29.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 81.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 82.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1284 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.3 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.069% and 36.900%.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 31.8 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.