Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3 Pro share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 16 to Gemini 3 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 25
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 4 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
Gemini 3 Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.73 versus 65.32. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemini 3 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 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. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Claude Sonnet 5.
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 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Δ | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 588.3 | Margin← 7.2 | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 581.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 576.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 557.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 88.3%B 81.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 6.9CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 81.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 51M | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1607 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1388 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 39.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 28.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 63.23% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 11.4% | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.6% | 56.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 14.30% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 91.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.4% | 39.5% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 90.8% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 37.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.3% | 15.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.3% | 55.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 37.3% | 90.9% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 88.3% | 81.4% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 77% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 80.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1314 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.73 to 65.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 88.3% and 81.4%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 81.1. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.