Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Direct comparison between anthropic and google for chat models. Specs, prices, strengths, weaknesses — decide on facts.
At a glance
- · Cheaper: Gemini 3 Pro
- · Longer context window: Gemini 3 Pro at 2,000,000 tokens
- · Claude Opus 4.6: Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- · Gemini 3 Pro: 2M token context — largest window among top-tier models
Spec comparison
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | anthropic | |
| Input per 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $1.25 / 1M |
| Output per 1M tokens | $25.00 / 1M | $5.00 / 1M |
| Context window | 200,000 tok | 2,000,000 tok |
| Max output | 32,000 tok | 65,536 tok |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07 | 2025-11 |
| Vision | ||
| Audio | ||
| Tool calling | ||
| JSON mode | ||
| Structured output | ||
| Reasoning |
Claude Opus 4.6 — strengths
- +Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- +Excellent at multi-day agentic tasks without drift
- +Top performance on multi-repo code analysis
Gemini 3 Pro — strengths
- +2M token context — largest window among top-tier models
- +True multimodal input: video, audio, image, text
- +Very strong on structured output and JSON-schema enforcement
Claude Opus 4.6 — weaknesses
- −Substantially pricier per token than Sonnet — rarely worth the markup
- −Higher latency, especially with extended thinking enabled
Gemini 3 Pro — weaknesses
- −Code generation slightly behind Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4
- −At very long contexts, latency becomes significant