Compare · ModelsLive · 4 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs o4 Mini
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on 17/34 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 17 of 34 shared benchmarks. Leads in general · math · coding.
Category leads
reasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewgeneral·Claude Opus 4.6math·Claude Opus 4.6coding·Claude Opus 4.6speed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Claude Opus 4.6arena·Claude Opus 4.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.6
#136 by perf·#7 by attention
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
#6 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#137 by perf·#6 by attention
o4 Mini
#132 by perf·no signal
Best value
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
5.5x better value than o4 Mini
Claude Opus 4.6
3.2 pts/$
$15.00/M
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
97.8 pts/$
$0.80/M
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
o4 Mini
17.6 pts/$
$2.75/M
Vendor risk
Mixed exposure
One or more vendors flagged
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
DeepSeek
$3.4B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
34 benchmarks · 4 models
Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V3.2 SpecialeGemini 3.1 Pro Previewo4 Mini
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.0
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
o4 Mini
58.7
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +7.9
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 4.6
69.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
o4 Mini
6.1
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +30.5
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
o4 Mini
22.1
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.8
Claude Opus 4.6
85.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
o4 Mini
62.7
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.8
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6
40.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
36.9
o4 Mini
24.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +6.2
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 4.6
22.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.7
o4 Mini
6.3
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.6
26.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.8
o4 Mini
4.9
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +6.3
Claude Opus 4.6
66.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
o4 Mini
36.1
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.2
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.6
87.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
o4 Mini
72.8
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +18.7
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 4.6
41.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.6
o4 Mini
3.6
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +12.6
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 4.6
31.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
43.7
o4 Mini
13.9
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.3
Claude Opus 4.6
65.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
o4 Mini
31.2
Metr Time Horizons
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +1.8
Claude Opus 4.6
78.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.0
o4 Mini
63.9
Mystery Game Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.9
Claude Opus 4.6
17.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
o4 Mini
0.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
o4 Mini
81.7
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +14.4
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.6
61.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.5
o4 Mini
26.4
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +26.5
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.6
47.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
73.5
o4 Mini
19.6
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.9
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.6
78.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
o4 Mini
52.6
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +21.4
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
0.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +30.9
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
37.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.3
DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale
29.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +11.0
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.6
46.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
35.3
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +90.8
Claude Opus 4.6
1537.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1446.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +10.3
Claude Opus 4.6
1497.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1487.0
Cl Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.1
Claude Opus 4.6
20.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
20.8
Cl Bench Life
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +0.1
Claude Opus 4.6
17.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.9
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +7.5
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.6
55.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
47.8
Ebr Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.6
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
14.3
Furniture Assembly
Claude Opus 4.6
0.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
0.0
PostTrainBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.8
Claude Opus 4.6
24.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.0
Proofbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +24.0
Claude Opus 4.6
50.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.0
VisualToolBench (VTB)
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.4
Claude Opus 4.6
27.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.0
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.1
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 4.6
78.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.4
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 4.6
79.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | o4 Mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 94.0 | — | 98.0 | 58.7 |
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. | 69.2 | — | 77.1 | 6.1 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.7 | — | 52.6 | 22.1 |
Dtbench | 85.3 | — | 95.1 | 62.7 |
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. | 40.7 | — | 36.9 | 24.8 |
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. | 22.9 | — | 16.7 | 6.3 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | — | 26.8 | 4.9 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 66.0 | — | 59.6 | 36.1 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 87.4 | — | 92.6 | 72.8 |
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. | 41.2 | — | 22.6 | 3.6 |
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%. | 31.1 | — | 43.7 | 13.9 |
Lmca | 65.6 | — | 63.3 | 31.2 |
Metr Time Horizons | 78.9 | — | 77.0 | 63.9 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 17.4 | — | 27.3 | 0.0 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 94.4 | — | 95.6 | 81.7 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 61.1 | — | 75.5 | 26.4 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 47.0 | — | 73.5 | 19.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 78.0 | — | 72.1 | 52.6 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | — | 0.0 | 21.4 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | — | 37.9 | 68.8 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | — | 29.4 | 29.7 | — |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 46.3 | — | 35.3 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1537.0 | — | 1446.2 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1497.3 | — | 1487.0 | — |
Cl Bench | 20.7 | — | 20.8 | — |
Cl Bench Life | 17.0 | — | 16.9 | — |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 55.3 | — | 47.8 | — |
Ebr Bench | 12.7 | — | 14.3 | — |
Furniture Assembly | 0.0 | — | 0.0 | — |
PostTrainBench | 24.8 | — | 22.0 | — |
Proofbench | 50.0 | — | 26.0 | — |
VisualToolBench (VTB) | 27.5 | — | 29.0 | — |
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. | 78.7 | — | 75.6 | — |
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. | 79.8 | — | 80.2 | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 | |
| $0.40 | $1.20 | 164K tokens (~82 books) | $6.00 | |
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| $1.10 | $4.40 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $19.25 |