Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Gemini 2.5 Pro remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Google

Reasoning: 9
Coding: 3
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 4
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.003
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 152.799tokens/sec

Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)

Anthropic

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 5
Multimodal: 4
Long Context: 7
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.010
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 71.11tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Gemini 2.5 Pro` vs `Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) debate, Gemini 2.5 Pro scores 90 against Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)'s 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Gemini 2.5 Pro300ms

Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

Gemini 2.5 Pro152.799

Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)71.11

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Gemini 2.5 Pro would cost $0.004, whereas Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) would cost $0.011. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/