Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Pro vs Claude Sonnet 4.5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 16/16 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 16 of 16 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · knowledge · math.
Category leads
reasoning·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
Claude Sonnet 4.5
#132 by perf·no signal
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Anthropic
$380.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
16 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3 ProClaude Sonnet 4.5
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +11.3
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 Sonnet 4.5
63.7
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +17.5
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 Sonnet 4.5
13.6
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.
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
Claude Sonnet 4.5
12.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +22.4
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 Sonnet 4.5
15.2
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.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.8
Claude Sonnet 4.5
4.2
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +13.7
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
Claude Sonnet 4.5
76.4
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.9
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 Sonnet 4.5
14.7
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +25.0
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
Claude Sonnet 4.5
9.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +13.6
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
Claude Sonnet 4.5
77.8
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.2
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
Claude Sonnet 4.5
9.9
SimpleBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +26.5
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
Claude Sonnet 4.5
45.2
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +49.3
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 Sonnet 4.5
23.6
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.7
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.
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Claude Sonnet 4.5
71.3
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +22.9
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 3 Pro
69.4
Claude Sonnet 4.5
46.5
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +76.8
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5
9.7
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +22.2
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Claude Sonnet 4.5
47.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Claude Sonnet 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 75.0 | 63.7 |
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. | 31.1 | 13.6 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 31.0 | 12.0 |
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 | 15.2 |
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. | 18.8 | 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. | 90.2 | 76.4 |
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 | 14.7 |
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%. | 34.4 | 9.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 91.4 | 77.8 |
PostTrainBench | 18.1 | 9.9 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 71.7 | 45.2 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 72.9 | 23.6 |
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. | 72.9 | 71.3 |
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. | 69.4 | 46.5 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 86.5 | 9.7 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 69.9 | 47.7 |
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 |