Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.61/100
Margin
1.7pts
winning →
55.3/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 42 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
7
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
42
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 4 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 BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.3 versus 53.61. 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 reasoning, where it averages 77.1 against 13.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 13.6% to 77.1%.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.

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 Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6Margin→ 63.5Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2Margin→ 20.6Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro82.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. ARC-AGI-2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 13.6%B 77.1%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 63.5
    ARC-AGI-2: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.6%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 77.1%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 13.495%B 36.900%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 23.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.495%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 16.700%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 12.5
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 4.167%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KGemini 3.1 Pro1MGemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 48.51%56.87%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
JobBenchSource 27.7%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —23.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —965Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —13.3%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —37.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —42.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —0.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —53.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —73.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —78.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —32.03%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —68.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —58.9%Not comparable
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-LCRSource —72.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —17.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
GPQASource 83.4%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —94.3%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —45.4%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —46.5%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —94.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —44.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —32.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —55.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —49.9%Not comparable
MathGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AIME 2025Source 87%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 13.495%36.900%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%16.700%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12221284Gemini 3.1 Pro 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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —82.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource —77.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.3 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 13.6% and 77.1%.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 31.8 versus 11.2. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 13.6. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 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 20, 2026

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.