Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 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 long context, where Claude Opus 4 leads 39.6 to 29.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 72% for Claude Opus 4 and 35.6% for Gemini 2.0 Pro.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 39.1 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | 35.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 63.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | 0.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 135.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 60.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 68% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 65.1% |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | 83.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 71% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 65.7% |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | 18.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | — |
| LMArena French | 1372 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 83.4% |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | — |
Long Context Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | 41.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Gemini 2.0 Pro?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Gemini 2.0 Pro better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 2.0 Pro share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14.