Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
80
Gemini 3.1 Pro
93
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #7 · Gemini 3.1 Pro unranked
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Reasoning
+12.7 difference
Multimodal
+13.3 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$null / $null
$1.25 / $5
46 t/s
109 t/s
1.01s
29.71s
200K
1M
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 80. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 83.9 against 70.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 70.6% to 83.9%.
Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 70.6% and 83.9%.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 64.4. Claude Opus 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.9 versus 70.6. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.