Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 7 categories and Gemini 2.0 Pro in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 64.7 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 91% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 39.1 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 35.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 63.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | 0.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | 135.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 60.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 68% |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 65.1% |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 71% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 83.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 65.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 18.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 83.4% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Gemini 2.0 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.0 Pro better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 2.0 Pro share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14.