Leaderboard · Guide · Updated
Claude vs Gemini
Anthropic's precision vs Google's scale. Benchmarks break the tie — and the winner depends on whether you value coding quality or context window.
OpenRouter routes GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, Llama, Qwen and 100+ other LLMs behind a single key — pay-as-you-go, no monthly minimum, transparent per-token pricing. Try OpenRouter → (affiliate · supports this site)
One-sentence verdict
Claude wins on coding, writing, and agentic reliability. Gemini wins on context length, multimodality, and price. For most engineering teams, Claude Sonnet 4 is the practical daily driver; for research and media workflows, Gemini 2.5 Pro's 2M context is unbeatable.
Flagship head-to-head: Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite (0–100) | 88.6 | 85.5 | +3.1 |
| Chatbot Arena Elo | 1390 | 1380 | +10 |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.0 | 86.0 | +1.0 |
| GPQA Diamond | 79.6 | 84.0 | −4.4 |
| MATH | 95.0 | 92.0 | +3.0 |
| HumanEval | 95.4 | 92.0 | +3.4 |
| SWE-Bench Verified | 74.5 | 63.8 | +10.7 |
| Price · input ($/1M) | $15.00 | $1.25 | +$13.75 |
| Price · output ($/1M) | $75.00 | $10.00 | +$65.00 |
| Context window | 200k | 2M | −1.8M |
| Modalities | text, image | text, image, audio, video |
Numbers compiled from provider technical reports and Chatbot Arena snapshots. See methodology.
OpenRouter exposes Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and 100+ other models behind a single API and a single invoice. Try OpenRouter → (affiliate)
Where Claude wins
- Coding (+10.7% SWE-Bench). Claude Opus 4.1's 74.5% vs Gemini 2.5 Pro's 63.8% is the largest single gap between these two models. Even Claude Sonnet 4 (72.7%) outcodes Gemini 2.5 Pro. Anthropic has invested heavily in long-horizon agentic coding and it shows.
- Writing and editorial tone. Claude consistently wins blind preference tests on long-form prose. If you're generating reports, articles, or customer communications, Claude's voice is more natural and less "AI-sounding".
- Refusal calibration. Claude is less prone to over-refusing on sensitive technical topics (security research, medical edge cases, policy analysis).
- HumanEval (+3.4%). Claude Opus 4.1 scores 95.4% vs 92.0% — a meaningful gap for code-generation tasks.
Where Gemini wins
- Context window (2M vs 200k). Gemini 2.5 Pro's 2-million-token context is 10× Claude's limit. You can feed an entire monorepo, a 2-hour video transcript, or 500 research papers in one shot.
- Multimodality. Gemini natively processes text, image, audio, and video. Claude handles text and images only; audio needs a separate transcription step.
- Price. Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 / $10 per 1M — same ballpark as GPT-5. Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15 / $75 — 12× more expensive. Even Gemini 2.5 Flash at $0.30 / $2.50 delivers 79% MMLU-Pro.
- GPQA Diamond (+4.4%). Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 84.0% vs Claude's 79.6% on graduate-level science Q&A — a rare benchmark win for Google.
Mid-tier battle: Claude Sonnet 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Most teams should not be buying flagships. The mid-tier comparison is more relevant:
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4 | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite | 87.5 | 82.3 | +5.2 |
| SWE-Bench | 72.7 | 53.3 | +19.4 |
| MMLU-Pro | 84.0 | 79.0 | +5.0 |
| Price in/out | $3 / $15 | $0.30 / $2.50 | 10× cheaper |
| Context | 200k | 1M | 5× larger |
The trade-off is stark: Claude Sonnet 4 is much better at coding and general reasoning but costs 10× more. Gemini 2.5 Flash is the value champion for non-coding workloads — customer support, content moderation, summarisation — where the 1M context and low price dominate.
Picking by use case
| Use case | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Software engineering (daily) | Claude Sonnet 4 | 72.7% SWE-Bench, best-in-class IDE integration, consistent on long-horizon tasks. |
| Software engineering (hard bugs) | Claude Opus 4.1 | 74.5% SWE-Bench, best agentic coding available. |
| Research / long document analysis | Gemini 2.5 Pro | 2M context — nothing else comes close for ingesting books, paper collections, or legal docs. |
| Customer support chatbot | Gemini 2.5 Flash | $0.30 / $2.50, 1M context for knowledge bases, 79% MMLU-Pro — good enough. |
| Video / audio analysis | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Native audio and video ingestion. Claude has no native audio support. |
| Writing / editorial | Claude Sonnet 4 | Blind preference tests consistently favour Claude's prose. |
| High-volume batch processing | Gemini 2.0 Flash | $0.10 / $0.40 — cheapest production-grade model on the market. |
The cost reality check
For a 10M-token-per-day production workload:
- Claude Opus 4.1: $450 / day ($164,250/year)
- Gemini 2.5 Pro: $56.25 / day ($20,531/year)
- Claude Sonnet 4: $90 / day ($32,850/year)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash: $14 / day ($5,110/year)
Claude Opus 4.1 costs 8× more than Gemini 2.5 Pro. Unless you specifically need Claude's coding edge or writing quality, that premium is hard to justify.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude better than Gemini?
Claude leads on coding (+10.7% SWE-Bench) and writing quality. Gemini leads on context length (2M vs 200k), multimodality, and price (12× cheaper at the flagship tier). The "better" model depends entirely on your use case.
Which is cheaper, Claude or Gemini?
Gemini is dramatically cheaper. Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 / $10 per 1M tokens. Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15 / $75 — 12× more on input and 7.5× more on output. Even Claude Sonnet 4 at $3 / $15 is more expensive than Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Which is better for coding?
Claude — by a large margin. Claude Opus 4.1 scores 74.5% on SWE-Bench vs Gemini 2.5 Pro's 63.8%. Claude Sonnet 4 (72.7%) also beats Gemini 2.5 Pro. The only exception is if you need the 2M context for monorepo-scale code review.
Should I use both?
Many teams do. Claude for coding and writing, Gemini for research and multimodal tasks. OpenRouter lets you route to both from one API key.
Related: GPT-5 vs Claude · Best LLM for coding · Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Methodology and sources: see About. Spotted a number that's out of date? Open an issue.
Get the weekly LLM digest
Benchmark movements, price changes, and the best model for your use case this week.