Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Gemini 3 Pro unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3 Pro share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 11 to Gemini 3 Pro.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 36
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 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 17 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 80. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 53.9 against 32.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 31.250% 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 4.8 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 Pro. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 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. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.8.
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 4.8 | Δ | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin← 21.0 | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | Margin→ 4.1 | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.8Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | 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 31.250%B 18.750%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 12.5FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 18.750%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 47.241%B 37.600%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 9.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 37.600%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 89.9%B 81.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.5CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 89.9%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 81.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$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 4.8Not available | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1600 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | 63.23% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | 87.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1354 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 11.4% | Not comparable |
Coding14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 58.3% | 41.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 56.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 14.30% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 91.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 39.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 90.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 37.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | 15.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 55.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 90.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalGemini 3 Pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 87.9% | 72.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| CharXivSource | 89.9% | 81.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 70.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 31.250% and 18.750%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 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 4.8 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 77. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.