Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Claude Opus 5 wins on Overall, Coding; Gemini 3.1 Pro wins on Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.
Verdict at a glance
Choose Claude Opus 5 if you…
- Dependable and stable
- Strong reasoning depth
- Strong long-document handling
- Best for: Deep reasoning, Long documents, Coding
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro if you…
- Native audio and video
- Strong scientific computing
- Largest 2M context
- Search integration
- Best for: Multimodal, Scientific reasoning, Audio & video
Head-to-head aggregate scores
Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 22 tracked models.
Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.
Specs & pricing — every field side by side
List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.
| Dimension | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Anthropic (US) | Google (US) | Different vendors |
| Released | 2026.07 | 2026.05 | Claude Opus 5 is newer |
| Overall (rank) | 87 · #2 | 83 · #3 | Claude Opus 5 +4 |
| Coding | 97 · #2 | 74 · #9 | Claude Opus 5 +23 |
| Multimodal | 91 · #5 | 92 · #2 | Gemini 3.1 Pro +1 |
| Context window | 1M | 2M | Gemini 3.1 Pro larger |
| Max output | 128K | 128K | Tie |
| Effective-context | 97 | 92 | Claude Opus 5 more reliable |
| Input $/1M | $5 | $2 | Gemini 3.1 Pro cheaper |
| Output $/1M | $25 | $12 | Gemini 3.1 Pro cheaper |
| Cache discount | 90% off | none | Claude Opus 5 deeper |
| Speed | ~45 tok/s | ~60 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Pro faster |
| TTFT | 0.9s | 0.7s | Gemini 3.1 Pro snappier |
| Function calling | 90 | 78 | Claude Opus 5 ahead |
| Refusal rate | ~7% | ~12% | Claude Opus 5 less restrictive |
| English | 96 | 90 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Chinese | 80 | 75 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Modalities | text, image | text, image, audio, video | different coverage |
| Open weights | No | No | Both closed |
| Fine-tuning | No | Yes | |
| Free tier | No free tier | Gemini App free with limited quota; API free tier available | |
| SOC2 / no-train | yes / yes | yes / yes | |
| Private deployment | No | No | Neither |
Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 22-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.
Dimension-by-dimension analysis
Reasoning & overall intelligence
Claude Opus 5 leads the overall aggregate by 4 points (87 vs 83). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Gemini 3.1 Pro remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.
Agentic coding
This is a decisive gap: Claude Opus 5 scores 97 against 74. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops Claude Opus 5 needs fewer correction turns; Gemini 3.1 Pro is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.
Multimodal
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads multimodal 92 vs 91. A concrete modality difference: Gemini 3.1 Pro additionally handles audio, video.
Speed & latency
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster in interactive use: ~60 tok/s with 0.7s TTFT versus ~45 tok/s with 0.9s TTFT (about 1.3× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.
Context: window vs usable recall
Nominal windows are 1M for Claude Opus 5 and 2M for Gemini 3.1 Pro. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: Gemini 3.1 Pro advertises 2M but Claude Opus 5 scores higher on effective-context (97 vs 92), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.
Price & total cost
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the cheaper API at $2/$12 versus Claude Opus 5 at $5/$25 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 2.5× lower. Cache discounts (Claude Opus 5 90%) shift the effective bill, worked out below.
Chinese vs English
English: Claude Opus 5 96 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro 90. Chinese: 80 vs 75. Both are US-based models; for Chinese-first workloads also compare domestic models on the leaderboard.
Tool use & ecosystem
Function-calling score: Claude Opus 5 90 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro 78, so Claude Opus 5 has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from Gemini 3.1 Pro. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.
Cost worked example — same workload, real token math
Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.
| Scenario · per month | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| List priceno cache applied | $1,250100M in × $5 + 30M out × $25 | $560100M in × $2 + 30M out × $12 | 2.23×gap |
| With caching90% of inputs cache-hit | $84590M cached in × $0.5 + 10M in × $5 + 30M out × $25 | $560no published cache discount | 1.51×gap |
Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.