Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #86 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 59 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 28 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 59
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 28
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 5 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 54.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 90.4 against 77.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 90.4% to 77.1%. Gemini 3.1 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 5 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 5 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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 15.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | Margin← 13.3 | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 90.4%B 77.1%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 13.3ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.4%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 77.1%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic34 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | 69.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 965 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 21.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 23.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | 16.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 73.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.87% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 53.8% | Not comparable |
Coding15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 68.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 58.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 32.03% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 45.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 46.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 94.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 44.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 32.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 55.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 49.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 36.900% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 16.700% | Not comparable |
Multilingual4 benchmarks
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 82.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 29.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 81.3% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1281 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 54.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 90.4% and 77.1%.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 77.1. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-3 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.