Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 1, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Claude Opus 4.5 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,568 vs 1,350), while Claude Opus 4.5 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (76.8%), while Gemini 2.5 Pro is more budget-friendly at $5/1M per 1M output tokens. Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
9 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Anthropic frontier coding and computer-use model. SWE-bench leader on the official mini-SWE-agent harness in the Feb 2026 refresh.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 218 Arena Elo pts
95 tok/s
$5 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +218 | ||
| Coding Elo | — | — | |
| LiveBench | +14.1% | ||
| SWE-bench | +13% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +7.7% | ||
| Time to first token | +170 ms | ||
| Output speed | 62 tok/s | 95 tok/s | +33 tok/s |
| Input price | $1.25/1M | +$13.75/1M | |
| Output price | +$70/1M | ||
| Context window | +1.8M |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Gemini 2.5 Pro is estimated to save $1,531.25/month ($18,375/year).
Higher SWE-bench (76.8%).
Lower output list price ($5/1M).
Lower TTFT (210 ms).
Larger window (2M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.5).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Claude Opus 4.5 | Higher SWE-bench (76.8%). |
| High-volume chat | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Lower output list price ($5/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Lower TTFT (210 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Larger window (2M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Claude Opus 4.5 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.5). |
The Feb refresh made 4.5 a coding reference. Newer Opus SKUs exist; this row stays as the dated harness point.
2025-03 row. 3.x Pro replaced it. Kept for old “2.5 pro vs gpt-4o” inbound.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-gemini-2-5-pro/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry