Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Mythos Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on 11/18 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 11 of 18 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · arena.
Category leads
knowledge·Claude Mythos Previewcoding·Claude Mythos Previewagentic·Claude Opus 4.6reasoning·Claude Opus 4.6arena·Claude Opus 4.6math·Claude Opus 4.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Mythos Preview
#4 by perf·#2 by attention
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
Claude Opus 4.6
#56 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Mythos Preview
—
no price
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
Claude Opus 4.6
3.8 pts/$
$15.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
18 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Mythos PreviewGemini 3 ProClaude Opus 4.6
GPQA diamond
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +4.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Mythos Preview
94.5
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
Claude Opus 4.6
87.4
HLE
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +22.4
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Claude Mythos Preview
56.8
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
Claude Opus 4.6
31.1
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +15.2
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Mythos Preview
93.9
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Claude Opus 4.6
78.7
Terminal Bench
Claude Mythos Preview leads by +7.3
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Mythos Preview
82.0
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
Claude Opus 4.6
74.7
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +13.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
Claude Opus 4.6
31.7
ARC-AGI
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +19.0
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
Claude Opus 4.6
94.0
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +38.1
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Claude Opus 4.6
69.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +105.3
Gemini 3 Pro
1437.6
Claude Opus 4.6
1542.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +10.4
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
Claude Opus 4.6
1496.6
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
Claude Opus 4.6
17.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.1
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3 Pro
37.6
Claude Opus 4.6
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +4.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.8
Claude Opus 4.6
22.9
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +14.7
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
Claude Opus 4.6
33.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
Claude Opus 4.6
94.4
PostTrainBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.0
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
Claude Opus 4.6
23.2
SimpleBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +10.6
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
Claude Opus 4.6
61.1
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +26.4
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Claude Opus 4.6
46.5
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +8.0
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Claude Opus 4.6
77.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Mythos Preview | Gemini 3 Pro | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 94.5 | 90.2 | 87.4 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 56.8 | 34.4 | 31.1 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 93.9 | 72.9 | 78.7 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 82.0 | 69.4 | 74.7 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | — | 18.4 | 31.7 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | — | 75.0 | 94.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | — | 31.1 | 69.2 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | — | 1437.6 | 1542.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | — | 1486.2 | 1496.6 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | — | 31.0 | 17.0 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | — | 37.6 | 40.7 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | — | 18.8 | 22.9 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | — | 18.6 | 33.3 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | — | 91.4 | 94.4 |
PostTrainBench | — | 18.1 | 23.2 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | — | 71.7 | 61.1 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | — | 72.9 | 46.5 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | — | 69.9 | 77.9 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | — | |
| — | — | — | — | |
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 |