Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro Preview

Detailed comparison between Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro Preview for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 takes the lead.

Both Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro Preview are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Claude Opus 4.5:

  • Claude Opus 4.5 has 97 higher ELO rating
  • Claude Opus 4.5 is 9.7s faster on average
  • Claude Opus 4.5 has a 11.1% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

Claude Opus 4.5

1619

Gemini 3 Pro Preview

1522

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

Claude Opus 4.5

56.0%

Gemini 3 Pro Preview

44.9%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

Claude Opus 4.5

4.91

Gemini 3 Pro Preview

4.90

Average Latency

Response time

Claude Opus 4.5

8252ms

Gemini 3 Pro Preview

17903ms

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3 Pro PreviewDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1619
1522
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
56.0%
44.9%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.91
4.90
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$5.00
$2.00
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$25.00
$12.00
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
200K
1049K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-11-24
2025-11-18
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
8.3s
17.9s
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By benchmark

Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.

MSMARCO

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3 Pro PreviewDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.97
4.80
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.97
4.80
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.97
4.80
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.97
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.97
4.87
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.97
4.85
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
5992ms
13990ms
Average response time
Min2590ms7461msFastest response time
Max8072ms26343msSlowest response time

PG

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3 Pro PreviewDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.93
4.97
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.93
4.97
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.93
4.97
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.93
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.80
4.80
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.91
4.94
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
11489ms
25137ms
Average response time
Min7945ms13317msFastest response time
Max15934ms62299msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3 Pro PreviewDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.73
4.93
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.80
4.97
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.80
4.93
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.97
4.93
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.70
4.77
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.80
4.91
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
7276ms
14583ms
Average response time
Min4210ms10135msFastest response time
Max10496ms21489msSlowest response time

Explore More

Compare more LLMs

See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.