Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 17/25 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 17 of 25 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · knowledge · coding.
Category leads
speed·Claude Sonnet 4.6agentic·Claude Sonnet 4.6reasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·Claude Sonnet 4.6knowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewgeneral·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Sonnet 4.6
#149 by perf·#10 by attention
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#137 by perf·#5 by attention
Best value
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1.3x better value than Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
5.1 pts/$
$9.00/M
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Head to head
25 benchmarks · 2 models
Claude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +19.4
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Claude Sonnet 4.6
40.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.8
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
63.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +17.5
Claude Sonnet 4.6
47.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
APEX-Agents
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +7.7
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
43.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
35.3
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +11.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
86.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.7
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
60.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +75.2
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1521.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1446.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +14.8
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1472.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1487.0
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +44.2
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
8.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +7.1
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
54.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
47.8
Deepswe
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +18.2
Claude Sonnet 4.6
29.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
11.7
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +12.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
Exploitbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.5
Claude Sonnet 4.6
23.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.1
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +19.9
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
56.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
36.9
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.9
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
13.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.7
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.4
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
Lmca
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +8.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
54.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
Mystery Game Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +19.8
Claude Sonnet 4.6
7.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
85.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
16.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.0
Proofbench
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +19.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
45.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +38.0
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
35.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
73.5
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.4
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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
75.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +26.8
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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
53.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
WeirdML
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +6.0
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
66.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 40.8 | 21.4 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 63.0 | 68.8 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 47.2 | 29.7 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 43.0 | 35.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 86.5 | 98.0 |
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. | 60.4 | 77.1 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1521.4 | 1446.2 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1472.2 | 1487.0 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 8.5 | 52.6 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 54.9 | 47.8 |
Deepswe | 29.9 | 11.7 |
Dtbench | 83.1 | 95.1 |
Exploitbench | 23.6 | 26.1 |
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. | 56.8 | 36.9 |
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. | 13.8 | 16.7 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 83.2 | 92.6 |
Lmca | 54.7 | 63.3 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 7.5 | 27.3 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 85.8 | 95.6 |
PostTrainBench | 16.4 | 22.0 |
Proofbench | 45.0 | 26.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 35.5 | 73.5 |
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. | 75.2 | 75.6 |
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. | 53.4 | 80.2 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 66.1 | 72.1 |
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 | |
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 |