Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.8
93
Gemini 3.1 Pro
92
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3 · Gemini 3.1 Pro unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 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.
Multimodal
+6.7 difference
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$5 / $25
$2 / $12
N/A
109 t/s
N/A
29.71s
1M
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 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.
Claude Opus 4.8 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 92. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
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.
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 92. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 89.9% and 80.2%.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.8 versus 76.1. Inside this category, CharXiv 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.