Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
8.9pts
← winning
55.3/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); 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 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 39 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 27 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Opus 4.5 only
39
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
27
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 7 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

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 57.5 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 20.690% to 36.900%. Gemini 3.1 Pro does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin← 25.7Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4Margin→ 12.7Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9Margin→ 12.7Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 20.690%B 36.900%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 16.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 70.6%B 83.9%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 13.3
    MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 16.700%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 12.5
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 4.167%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 68.5%B 80.2%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 11.7
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sGemini 3.1 Pro has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sClaude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KGemini 3.1 Pro1MGemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%57.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%56.87%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —23.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —965Not 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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
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
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 0.3%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%46.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%49.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—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
MathClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%36.900%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%16.700%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%83.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%80.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%84.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12791284Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 20.690% and 36.900%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 64.4. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 69.9. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.