Updated March 25, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools leads in intelligence with a score of 57.2 vs 51.7. For speed, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools wins at 113 tok/s vs 65 tok/s.
| Metric | Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 | Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 51.7 | 57.2 |
| Coding Score | 50.9 | 55.5 |
| Math Score | N/A | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 65 tok/s | 113 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 38.68s | 23.00s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | $15 | $12 |
| Context Window |
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools outperforms Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 on the intelligence index with a score of 57.2 compared to 51.7. For coding tasks, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has the edge with a coding score of 55.5 vs 50.9.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools generates output significantly faster at 113 tok/s compared to Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4's 65 tok/s, making it 1.7x faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 23.00s for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs 38.68s for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4, which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is more affordable at $2.00/1M input tokens ($12/1M output), while Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 costs $3.00/1M input ($15/1M output). For a typical workload of 100 requests per day at 2,000 tokens each, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 would cost approximately $18.00/month vs $12.00/month for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools in input costs alone.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools offers a larger context window at 1.0M tokens compared to Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4's 200K. This means Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools can process roughly 524 pages of text in a single request vs 100 pages for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4. For output length, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools can generate up to 66K tokens per response vs 64K for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.
Choose Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools when you need higher intelligence (57.2), stronger coding performance (55.5), faster output (113 tok/s), larger context window (1.0M).
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools scores higher on coding benchmarks (55.5 vs 50.9), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is cheaper at $2.00/1M input tokens vs $3.00/1M for Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is faster, producing output at 113 tok/s compared to Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4's 65 tok/s.
Yes, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 supports image input. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools also supports images.
Data last synced: March 25, 2026
| 200K |
| 1.0M |
| Max Output Tokens | 64K | 66K |
| Input Modalities | Image + Text + File | Text + Audio + Image + Video + File |
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | No | No |
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has a larger context window at 1.0M compared to Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4's 200K.
It depends on your priorities. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools scores higher on intelligence (57.2), but Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 4 may be better for specific use cases like budget-conscious projects or speed-critical applications.