Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3 Pro share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 8 to Gemini 3 Pro.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 27
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 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 19 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 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 4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 68.59 versus 67.73. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 36.3 against 32.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.900% to 18.750%. Gemini 3 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 4.6 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 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.6.
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 4.6 | Δ | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin→ 3.8 | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin← 3.4 | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.900%B 18.750%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 4.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 18.750%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.3%B 81%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 3.7MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 77.3%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 81%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 40.700%B 37.600%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 3.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 37.600%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | Gemini 3 Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | Claude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 87.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 63.23% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | 11.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | 14.30% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 56.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 91.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 39.5% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 90.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 37.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | 15.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 55.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 90.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3 Pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 81% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | 72.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 80.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 70.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 67.73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.900% and 18.750%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 32.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 77.3. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro 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.