Head-to-head

Claude Opus 4.8 logovsGemini 3 Pro logo

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3 Pro: which AI model wins in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.8 ($25/1M out) and Gemini 3 Pro ($12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 6 community votes, Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 57% approval.

Quick verdict

On Reasoning, Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3 Pro are tied at 4.5/5. On budget, Gemini 3 Pro wins: it starts at $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K) versus $25/1M out for Claude Opus 4.8.

Line-by-line comparison

From
$25/1M outStandard tier $5/$25 per 1M tokens (unchanged from Opus 4.7); fast mode research preview at $10/$50 (vs $30/$150 on Opus 4.7's deprecated fast tier); batch API 50% off at $2.50/$12.50; no long-context surcharge up to 1M tokens; prompt cache reads at $0.50/1M.
$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)Standard tier: $2/$12 per 1M tokens for prompts ≤200K, $4/$18 above 200K; batch at 50% off. Retired March 9, 2026, successor Gemini 3.1 Pro keeps identical pricing.
Provider
Anthropic
Google (DeepMind)
Context window
1M tokens (128K max output)
1M tokens (64K output)
Input price
$5/1M in
$2/1M in (prompts ≤200K)
Output price
$25/1M out
$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)
Modalities
text, vision (image input up to 2576px, text output)
text, image, audio, video in; text out
Open weights
No
No
Crowd score
57%(3)
57%(3)
Arena ratings (1-5)
Reasoning
4.5
4.5
Coding
5.0
4.5
Writing
5.0
3.5
Speed
3.0
3.5
Value
3.5
4.0

Strengths and weaknesses

Claude Opus 4.8

  • SWE-Bench Pro 69.2% (vs 64.3% for Opus 4.7) and beats prior Opus models on CursorBench at every effort level; strong real-world reports on large refactors and multi-file bug hunts
  • About 4x less likely than Opus 4.7 to let flaws in its own generated code pass unflagged; big jump on math reasoning (USAMO 2026: 96.7% vs 69.3%)
  • 1M-token context and 128K output at unchanged $5/$25 pricing, with no long-context premium; batch API at 50% off ($2.50/$12.50)
  • Fast mode (research preview) delivers up to 2.5x output speed at $10/$50, 3x cheaper than Opus 4.7's fast tier ($30/$150)
  • Unique API features for agents: mid-conversation system messages that preserve the prompt cache, and Dynamic Workflows spawning parallel subagents in Claude Code
  • 84% on Online-Mind2Web browser automation and record score on Legal Agent Benchmark (first model past 10% all-pass); strong enterprise knowledge work (Box reports 87% vs 77% internally)
  • Turn-by-turn regressions reported: missed obvious instructions in planning docs, answering a narrow slice of the goal, and worse one-shot simple UI generation than 4.7
  • Writing style criticized by heavy users: excessive hedging, over-cautious editing that 'cuts anything bold or funny' (Steve Yegge), and pushback loops even against well-evidenced theses
  • Language-mixing quirk: users report random Chinese, Cyrillic, or Greek insertions in long research threads
  • Visible quality degradation past ~200K tokens in hands-on use despite the advertised 1M window
  • Vending-Bench regression: fell for scam suppliers about 30x more than 4.7 and negotiates worse (a side effect of stricter honesty alignment)

Gemini 3 Pro

  • Topped LMArena at launch with a record 1501 Elo and scored 91.9% on GPQA Diamond, state of the art at release
  • ARC-AGI-2 at 31.1%, roughly 6x Gemini 2.5 Pro (4.9%) and nearly double GPT-5.1 (17.6%) at the time
  • Best-in-class multimodal understanding: 81% MMMU-Pro, 87.6% Video-MMMU, with a 1M-token context window
  • Strong agentic coding: 76.2% SWE-bench Verified, 54.2% Terminal-Bench 2.0, 1487 Elo on WebDev Arena
  • Undercut rivals on price at $2/$12 per 1M tokens, below Claude Sonnet-class pricing ($3/$15)
  • Configurable thinking_level (low/medium/high) lets developers trade reasoning depth against latency and cost
  • Overconfident hallucinations: on AA-Omniscience it gave a wrong answer 88% of the time instead of declining, vs 48% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 (the-decoder)
  • Sycophancy widely reported by reviewers (Zvi Mowshowitz: 'vast intelligence with no spine'); needs tight system prompts
  • Tool-calling reliability issues in agent stacks: devs reported tool outputs dumped into the chat thread and more scaffolding needed than OpenAI/Anthropic models
  • Slow at high thinking level: time to first token measured around 30-60s on AI Studio despite ~130 tok/s output speed
  • Retired: shut down on the Gemini API and AI Studio on March 9, 2026, with gemini-3-pro-preview now aliased to Gemini 3.1 Pro

Cast your verdict

One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.

Claude Opus 4.8$25/1M out
57%crowd score · 3
Gemini 3 Pro$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)
57%crowd score · 3

The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.8

A drop-in upgrade for Opus 4.7 users: identical API surface and $5/$25 pricing with real gains on long-horizon agentic coding, code review, and enterprise analysis. Choose it if you run Claude Code, multi-file migrations, security audits, or agent pipelines that inspect, act, and verify over many steps. Skip it for quick one-shot UI snippets or prompts tightly tuned to 4.7 behavior, where users report regressions, and pick Sonnet 5 ($3/$15, intro $2/$10 through Aug 2026) if cost matters more than ceiling capability. Writers sensitive to hedging and over-cautious editing may find its style frustrating.

The arena’s verdict on Gemini 3 Pro

A landmark release that put Google back on top in late 2025, with a huge reasoning jump over Gemini 2.5 Pro and the best multimodal scores of its generation. As of mid-2026 there is no reason to choose it: Google shut it down on the API on March 9, 2026, and Gemini 3.1 Pro costs exactly the same while more than doubling ARC-AGI-2 performance (77.1% vs 31.1%). Teams on legacy deployments should migrate to 3.1 Pro, which the old model ID now points to anyway. Avoid it for hallucination-sensitive workloads unless you add grounding, a weakness reviewers flagged repeatedly.

What the crowd says

On Claude Opus 4.8

Judge Dreadful

Writing took a hit. It hedges everything and edits any bold or funny line out of my drafts. Also caught it answering a narrow slice of my planning doc and calling it done.

Champion of Vibes

Threw USAMO-level math at it for a lark and it just grinds through. 96.7 vs 69 for 4.7 tracks with what I see. Same $5/$25, 1M context, no excuse not to switch.

Glorius Maximus

Upgraded from 4.7 for a monorepo refactor and the difference is real. It actually flags its own sketchy code instead of shipping it. Multi-file bug hunts feel way less babysat.

On Gemini 3 Pro

Judge Dreadful

Confidently wrong is its worst mode. On AA-Omniscience it gave a wrong answer 88% of the time instead of declining. Add the sycophancy and you need a tight system prompt to trust it.

Champion of Vibes

ARC-AGI-2 at 31% was about 6x Gemini 2.5 Pro and nearly double GPT-5.1 at the time. For visual-heavy work (81 MMMU-Pro) nothing else came close.

Glorius Maximus

1501 Elo on LMArena at launch was deserved. Multimodal is where it kills, I feed it lecture videos and dense PDFs and it just gets it. 1M context helps.

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Gemini 3 Pro?

The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3 Pro?

Gemini 3 Pro is cheaper: it starts at $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K), while Claude Opus 4.8 starts at $25/1M out.

How much do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3 Pro cost per 1M tokens?

Claude Opus 4.8: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. Gemini 3 Pro: $2/1M in (prompts ≤200K) per 1M input tokens, $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K) per 1M output tokens.