Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 14/20 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 14 of 20 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · math.
Category leads
agentic·Claude Opus 4.5reasoning·Claude Opus 4.5arena·Claude Opus 4.5knowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Procoding·Claude Opus 4.5
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.5
#113 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Head to head
20 benchmarks · 2 models
Claude Opus 4.5Gemini 3 Pro
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.5
18.4
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
ARC-AGI
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +5.0
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.5
80.0
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +6.5
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Opus 4.5
37.6
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +27.7
Claude Opus 4.5
1465.2
Gemini 3 Pro
1437.6
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +18.4
Claude Opus 4.5
1467.7
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +19.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.5
12.0
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +16.9
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
20.7
Gemini 3 Pro
37.6
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.6
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.5
4.2
Gemini 3 Pro
18.8
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +9.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Claude Opus 4.5
75.0
Gemini 3 Pro
84.0
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.8
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.5
81.4
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +7.9
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Claude Opus 4.5
26.5
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.9
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 Opus 4.5
21.4
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.5
86.1
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.8
Claude Opus 4.5
17.3
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
SimpleBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +17.3
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.5
54.4
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +31.1
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.5
41.8
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.5 leads by +3.7
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 Opus 4.5
76.7
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.3
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 Opus 4.5
63.1
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +76.5
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Claude Opus 4.5
10.0
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.2
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.5
63.7
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
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 | 18.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 80.0 | 75.0 |
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. | 37.6 | 31.1 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1465.2 | 1437.6 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1467.7 | 1486.2 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.0 | 31.0 |
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. | 20.7 | 37.6 |
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. | 4.2 | 18.8 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 75.0 | 84.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 81.4 | 90.2 |
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. | 26.5 | 18.6 |
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%. | 21.4 | 34.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 86.1 | 91.4 |
PostTrainBench | 17.3 | 18.1 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.4 | 71.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 41.8 | 72.9 |
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. | 76.7 | 72.9 |
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. | 63.1 | 69.4 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 10.0 | 86.5 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 63.7 | 69.9 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $100.00 | |
| — | — | — | — |