Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 15 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 32 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemini 3.1 Pro is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking.
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 Opus 4.5 Thinking | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking200K | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 89.5% | 95.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.3% | 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 | — | 58.9% | 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 |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.8% | 46.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 94.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.4% | 44.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 13.3% | 32.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.7% | 55.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 59.8% | 49.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 91.3% | 93.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 74.0% | 82.4% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | 1281 | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.0% | 77.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemini 3.1 Pro on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemini 3.1 Pro today?
Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.