Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 31 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
3.0pts
winning →
88/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Gemini 3.1 Pro unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 31 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 17 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
31
Claude Opus 4.8 only
22
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
17
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.8 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 31 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

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 88 versus 85. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Gemini 3.1 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 82.6 against 77. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 31.250% to 16.700%. Claude Opus 4.8 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.8 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. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 4.8 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin← 22.1Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0Margin→ 5.6Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro77.1
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 31.250%B 16.700%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 14.6
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 47.241%B 36.900%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 10.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 80.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 9.7
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 89.9%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$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 4.8Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MGemini 3.1 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%69.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1600962Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%56.87%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%21.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%23.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%13.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%37.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%42.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%0.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%16.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%68.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%53.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%73.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —78.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —32.03%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 20.9%17.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%94.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%45.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%46.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%44.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%49.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%36.900%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%16.700%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%84.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXivSource 89.9%80.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12811294Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1320Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —82.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 85. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 31.250% and 16.700%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 31.8. 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 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 77. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.