Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Compare Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro: Overview
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $12.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 56.72% | 75.76% |
| Avg Response Time | 19.74s | 6.13s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 11 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 44.4%(4/9) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.52% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.11s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 12 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0024 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 94.9%(94/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 90%(9/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 81.7%(49/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology