4 vs 2 benchmarks won
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 | Google Gemini 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | May 28 2026 | May 19 2026 |
| Model type | — | — |
| Open source | No | No |
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | — |
Context window | — | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 69.2%Best | 55.1% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 74.6% | 76.2%Best |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 83.6% |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 56.5% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 49.8%Best | 40.2% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 57.9% | — |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 72.1% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 83.4%Best | 78.4% |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 53.9% | 57.9%Best |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1890Best | 1656 |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 84.2% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 83.6% |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | — | 33.6% |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | — | 77.3% |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | — | 26.6% |
| Timeline | ||
| Release gap | Gemini 3.5 Flash shipped 9 days before Claude Opus 4.8 | |
Claude Opus 4.8 leads Gemini 3.5 Flash on 4 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Gemini 3.5 Flash shipped 9 days before Claude Opus 4.8, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Claude Opus 4.8 leads at 69.2% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 55.1%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 76.2% vs Claude Opus 4.8 at 74.6%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Opus 4.8 leads at 49.8% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 40.2%. On OSWorld-Verified, Claude Opus 4.8 leads at 83.4% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 78.4%. On Finance Agent v2, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 57.9% vs Claude Opus 4.8 at 53.9%. On GDPval-AA, Claude Opus 4.8 leads at 1890 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 1656.