Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.1
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 2.5 Pro wins on 11/13 benchmarks
Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 11 of 13 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · math · reasoning.
Category leads
knowledge·Gemini 2.5 Promath·Gemini 2.5 Proreasoning·Gemini 2.5 Procoding·Claude Opus 4.1
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#61 by perf·no signal
Claude Opus 4.1
#137 by perf·no signal
Best value
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.9x better value than Claude Opus 4.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Claude Opus 4.1
0.9 pts/$
$45.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
13 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 2.5 ProClaude Opus 4.1
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +0.0
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
49.7
Claude Opus 4.1
49.7
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +6.9
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
14.1
Claude Opus 4.1
7.2
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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
Claude Opus 4.1
4.2
GPQA diamond
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +10.7
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
Claude Opus 4.1
69.7
HLE
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +10.6
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%.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
17.7
Claude Opus 4.1
7.1
Lech Mazur Writing
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +0.6
Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.0
Claude Opus 4.1
85.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +15.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
Claude Opus 4.1
68.9
SimpleBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.9
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
Claude Opus 4.1
52.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +21.2
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
Claude Opus 4.1
34.8
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.1 leads by +15.8
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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
57.6
Claude Opus 4.1
73.3
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.1 leads by +5.4
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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.6
Claude Opus 4.1
38.0
VPCT
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +17.1
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.6
Claude Opus 4.1
2.5
WeirdML
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +11.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
Claude Opus 4.1
42.8
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.1 |
|---|---|---|
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 49.7 | 49.7 |
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. | 14.1 | 7.2 |
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 | 4.2 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 80.4 | 69.7 |
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%. | 17.7 | 7.1 |
Lech Mazur Writing Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication. | 86.0 | 85.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 84.7 | 68.9 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.9 | 52.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 56.0 | 34.8 |
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. | 57.6 | 73.3 |
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. | 32.6 | 38.0 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 19.6 | 2.5 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 54.0 | 42.8 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $34.38 | |
| $15.00 | $75.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $300.00 |