Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro vs Muse Spark
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 9/21 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 9 of 21 shared benchmarks. Leads in math · knowledge · coding.
Category leads
speed·Claude Sonnet 4.6arena·Muse Sparkmath·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Progeneral·Claude Sonnet 4.6agentic·Claude Sonnet 4.6reasoning·Claude Sonnet 4.6coding·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Sonnet 4.6
#149 by perf·#10 by attention
Gemini 3 Pro
#71 by perf·#5 by attention
Muse Spark
#74 by perf·no signal
Best value
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
5.1 pts/$
$9.00/M
Gemini 3 Pro
n/a
no price
Muse Spark
n/a
no price
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
U
Unknown
private · undisclosed
Head to head
21 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3 ProMuse Spark
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.3
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?"
Claude Sonnet 4.6
40.8
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
Muse Spark
28.7
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +4.4
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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
63.0
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
Muse Spark
58.6
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +4.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
47.2
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
Muse Spark
43.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Muse Spark leads by +3.9
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1472.2
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.5
Muse Spark
1489.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Muse Spark leads by +2.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
56.8
Gemini 3 Pro
66.0
Muse Spark
68.4
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.9
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
13.8
Gemini 3 Pro
31.3
Muse Spark
24.3
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.8
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83.2
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
Muse Spark
86.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +2.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
85.8
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
Muse Spark
88.9
Proofbench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +25.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
45.0
Gemini 3 Pro
20.0
Muse Spark
17.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.6
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
35.5
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Muse Spark
66.3
APEX-Agents
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +24.6
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
43.0
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
ARC-AGI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +11.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
86.5
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +29.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
60.4
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +82.4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1521.4
Gemini 3 Pro
1439.0
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +18.9
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
8.5
Gemini 3 Pro
27.4
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +8.6
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
54.9
Gemini 3 Pro
46.3
HLE
Muse Spark leads by +3.2
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%.
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
Muse Spark
37.6
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
16.4
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +2.3
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 Sonnet 4.6
75.2
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +16.0
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 Sonnet 4.6
53.4
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.9
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
66.1
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro | Muse Spark |
|---|---|---|---|
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?" | 40.8 | 45.0 | 28.7 |
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. | 63.0 | 39.4 | 58.6 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 47.2 | 41.3 | 43.1 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1472.2 | 1485.5 | 1489.3 |
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. | 56.8 | 66.0 | 68.4 |
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. | 13.8 | 31.3 | 24.3 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 83.2 | 90.2 | 86.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 85.8 | 91.4 | 88.9 |
Proofbench | 45.0 | 20.0 | 17.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 35.5 | 72.9 | 66.3 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 43.0 | 18.4 | — |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 86.5 | 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. | 60.4 | 31.1 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1521.4 | 1439.0 | — |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 8.5 | 27.4 | — |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 54.9 | 46.3 | — |
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%. | — | 34.4 | 37.6 |
PostTrainBench | 16.4 | 18.1 | — |
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. | 75.2 | 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. | 53.4 | 69.4 | — |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 66.1 | 69.9 | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $3.00 | $15.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $60.00 | |
| — | — | — | — | |
U Muse Spark | — | — | — | — |