Math
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.6
- 36.3
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 56.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
17 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
16 Claude Opus 4.6 only
17 Shared
6 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 16
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 77.3
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 73.0
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 68.1
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 69.1
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math | 36.3 | 31.8 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Multimodal | 77.3 | 82.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 73.0 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 68.1 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 77.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 69.1 | Not measured | Not comparable4 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.6: 77.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro: 83.9%Normalized gap 6.6Claude Opus 4.6 source Gemini 3.1 Pro sourceFrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.6Gemini 3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.6
1M
Gemini 3.1 Pro
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.6
Not published
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogReasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.6
2026-02-01
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 56.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.2.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence39 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.665.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.683.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.672.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.670.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.673.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.666.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.661.85%Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.619.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.636.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Claude Opus 4.6—Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.680.8%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Opus 4.675.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.670.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.653.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Opus 4.665.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.684.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.657.57%Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.626.9%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.691.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.689.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.695%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.682%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.689.1%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.653%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.640%Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.614.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MedXpertQA (Text)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.652.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
Math
AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.699.8%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.640.700%Gemini 3.1 Pro36.900%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.622.900%Gemini 3.1 Pro16.700%Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.677.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
ERQA
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.651.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.683.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MedXpertQA (MM)
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.664.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.6—Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.6—Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Opus 4.6—Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 56.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.6 and $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.2. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.