Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs Anthropic: Claude Opus 4: Which AI Model Is Better?
Updated March 24, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
Quick Verdict
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools leads in intelligence with a score of 57.2 vs 46.5. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is 7.5x cheaper at $2.00/1M tokens vs $15/1M. For speed, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools wins at 117 tok/s vs 44 tok/s.
Head-to-Head Comparison
| Metric | Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 57.2 | 46.5 |
| Coding Score | 55.5 | 47.6 |
| Math Score | N/A | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 117 tok/s | 44 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 21.91s | 1.94s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | $2.00 | $15 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | $12 | $75 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 200K |
| Max Output Tokens | 66K | 32K |
| Input Modalities | Text + Audio + Image + Video + File | Image + Text + File |
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | No | No |
Detailed Analysis
Intelligence & Quality
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools outperforms Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 on the Artificial Analysis intelligence index with a score of 57.2 compared to 46.5. For coding tasks, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has the edge with a coding score of 55.5 vs 47.6.
Speed & Latency
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools generates output significantly faster at 117 tok/s compared to Anthropic: Claude Opus 4's 44 tok/s, making it 2.6x faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 1.94s for Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 vs 21.91s for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools, which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
Pricing
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is more affordable at $2.00/1M input tokens ($12/1M output), while Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 costs $15/1M input ($75/1M output). That makes Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 7.5x more expensive per token, which can add up significantly at scale. For a typical workload of 100 requests per day at 2,000 tokens each, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools would cost approximately $12.00/month vs $90.00/month for Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 in input costs alone.
Context Window
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools offers a larger context window at 1.0M tokens compared to Anthropic: Claude Opus 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 Opus 4. For output length, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools can generate up to 66K tokens per response vs 32K for Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.
Best Use Cases
Choose Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools when you need higher intelligence (57.2), stronger coding performance (55.5), faster output (117 tok/s), lower cost, larger context window (1.0M).
Choose Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools if:
- ✓You need higher intelligence (score: 57.2 vs 46.5)
- ✓You prioritize coding performance (score: 55.5 vs 47.6)
- ✓You need faster throughput (117 tok/s vs 44 tok/s)
- ✓Budget is a concern ($2.00/1M vs $15/1M)
- ✓You need a larger context window (1.0M vs 200K)
Choose Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 if:
- ✓You want lower latency (1.94s vs 21.91s TTFT)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools better than Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 for coding?
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools scores higher on coding benchmarks (55.5 vs 47.6), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
Which is cheaper, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or Anthropic: Claude Opus 4?
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is cheaper at $2.00/1M input tokens vs $15/1M for Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.
Is Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools faster than Anthropic: Claude Opus 4?
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is faster, producing output at 117 tok/s compared to Anthropic: Claude Opus 4's 44 tok/s.
Can Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools process images?
Yes, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools supports image input. Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 also supports images.
Which has a larger context window, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or Anthropic: Claude Opus 4?
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has a larger context window at 1.0M compared to Anthropic: Claude Opus 4's 200K.
Should I use Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or Anthropic: Claude Opus 4?
It depends on your priorities. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools scores higher on intelligence (57.2), but Anthropic: Claude Opus 4 may be better for specific use cases like budget-conscious projects or speed-critical applications.
Related Comparisons
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis
Data last synced: March 24, 2026