Claude Opus 5vsGemini 3.1 Pro
Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 37% |
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. | — | 54.2% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 80.6% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 68.8%Best | 12% |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Main)A set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 53.4% | — |
ML engineering MLE-BenchCan the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 42.6% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 75% |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 43.3% | — |
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. | — | 70.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 68.5% |
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. | — | 78.2% |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | — | 48.8% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 90.8%Best | 85.9% |
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. | 56.3%Best | 44.4% |
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. | 64.7%Best | 51.4% |
Novel problem-solving ARC-AGI-3The third generation of the ARC-AGI series: instead of static puzzles, the AI is dropped into small interactive game-like environments it has never seen and has to figure out the rules and solve them on its own. Higher is better. | 30.2% | — |
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. | — | 77.1% |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | — | 36.9% |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 4Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | — | 16.7% |
Biology BioMysteryBench · hardReal unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · human solvedReal biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 90.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 94.3% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld 2.0Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 70.6% | — |
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. | — | 76.2% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 26% | — |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 43% |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Held-out)Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work, scored on a held-out set of tasks the model makers never see — making the numbers harder to game. Higher is better. | 11.7% | — |
Health HealthBench ProfessionalRealistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 59.8% | — |
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. | — | 1314 |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1861Best | 965 |
Knowledge work GDPval (win/tie rate)How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 67.3% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 83.3% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 80.5% |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | — | 26.5% |
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. | — | 84.9% |
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. | — | 26.3% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1485 |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1445 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Jul 24 2026 | Feb 19 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 leads Gemini 3.1 Pro on 5 of the 5 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, BrowseComp, Humanity's Last Exam, GDPval-AA v2). Gemini 3.1 Pro shipped 155 days before Claude Opus 5, 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 DeepSWE 1.1, Claude Opus 5 leads at 68.8% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 12%. On BrowseComp, Claude Opus 5 leads at 90.8% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 85.9%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Opus 5 leads at 56.3% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 44.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Opus 5 leads at 64.7% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 51.4%. On GDPval-AA v2, Claude Opus 5 leads at 1861 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 965.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 5 was released by Anthropic on Jul 24 2026.
Gemini 3.1 Pro was released by Google on Feb 19 2026.
Claude Opus 5 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Claude Opus 5 68.8% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro 12%.
Claude Opus 5 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Claude Opus 5 56.3% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro 44.4%.
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 5vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.1 ProvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Opus 5vsMuse Spark 1.1Gemini 3.1 ProvsMuse Spark 1.1Claude Opus 5vsGrok 4.5Gemini 3.1 ProvsGrok 4.5Claude Opus 5vsDeepSeek-V4-ProGemini 3.1 ProvsDeepSeek-V4-ProClaude Opus 5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.1 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Opus 5vsKimi K3Gemini 3.1 ProvsKimi K3