Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Gemini 2.5 Pro in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 45.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2025-03-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1.05M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $10 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 78 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 54% |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 53.6% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 83.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1227 |
| SciCode | — | 42.8% |
| GSO | — | 3.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1452 |
| CadEval | — | 64% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 785.52 |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.51 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 32.6% |
| GDPval | — | 23.3% |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 0.8% |
| TheAgentCompany | — | 30.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 13.7% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 42.8% |
| BALROG | — | 43.3% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 55.4% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 573.64 |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 82.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 145.32 |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | 61.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 4.9% |
| SimpleBench | — | 62.4% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 70.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 41% |
| CritPt | — | 2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 89.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1455 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 79.9% |
| LMCA | — | 34.8% |
| LiveBench | — | 82.3% |
Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 84.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 24.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 0% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 90.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1450 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 95.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 14.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 85.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 21.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 86.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 10.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 74.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1452 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| GeoBench | — | 86% |
| VPCT | — | 48% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1421 |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 44.7% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1507 |
| LMArena French | — | 1472 |
| LMArena German | — | 1487 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1461 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1434 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1461 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1473 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 80.6% |
| IFEval | — | 84% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1437 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 91.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1449 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1458 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1454 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83.8% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1421 |
| WildBench | — | 85.7% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1453 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 67.8% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Gemini 2.5 Pro better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78.