▸ compare
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 vs Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro
Side-by-side benchmark comparison based on independent public data. Scores, pricing, context, and task breakdown.
▸ verdict
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5
86.3
higher score
vs
Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.2
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 leads with a higher composite benchmark score. It's the stronger choice for general-purpose tasks based on public benchmark data.
▸ score breakdown
| Task | Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 | Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 86.3 | 81.2 | +5.1 |
| Coding | 69.1 | 50.7 | +18.4 |
| Reasoning | 71.8 | 49.1 | +22.7 |
| Math | — | — | — |
| Writing | 84.8 | 72.6 | +12.2 |
| JSON | 46.1 | — | — |
▸ specs & pricing
| Attribute | Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 | Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M tokens | $5.00/M | $1.25/M |
| Output $/M tokens | $25.00/M | $10.00/M |
| Weights | proprietary | proprietary |
▸ frequently asked
Is Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 better than Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher overall (86.3 vs 81.2) in the benchmark composite. The best choice depends on the specific use case and budget.
Which is cheaper: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 or Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper at $1.25/M input tokens vs $5/M for Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5.
Which model is better for coding?
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 leads on coding with a score of 69.1 vs 50.7 for Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro. This is based on SWE-Bench, Aider Polyglot, and LiveCodeBench data.