Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.32/100
Margin
10.0pts
← winning
55.3/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 22 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 25 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Sonnet 5 only
14
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
25
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.32 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 88.3 against 82.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 88.3% to 80.2%.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 5. Claude Sonnet 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryClaude Sonnet 5ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 588.3Margin← 5.7Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6
AgenticClaude Sonnet 581.9MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
CodingClaude Sonnet 576.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro77.1
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 557.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 ProNot measured
MathClaude Sonnet 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro31.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 5B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 88.3%B 80.2%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 8.1
    CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputClaude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 51MGemini 3.1 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 57.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 81.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1607965Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 46.7%21.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.4%23.3%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1388—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 39.2%37.5%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.7%42.2%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Harvey LABSource 90.1%58.9%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 28.2%16.5%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.5%73.8%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.6%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —56.87%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —13.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —53.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 85.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 63.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 28.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 42.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.5%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%68.8%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.6%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —78.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —32.03%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 70.7%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 16.9%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
HLESource 57.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.2%45.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.4%46.5%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 15.3%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.3%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.3%49.9%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GPQA-DSource —94.3%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —36.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —16.700%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
CharXivSource 88.3%80.2%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 77%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141281Claude Sonnet 5 leads
MMMU-ProSource —83.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource —77.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 88.3% and 80.2%.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 82.6. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.