Data points: 62
The readout for Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 2.0 Pro, before the detailed comparison sheet.
Decision read
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 currently has the stronger profile, with verified wins split 5 to 1.
Evidence depth
62 data points
Includes 3 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 7 provider examples.
Selection signal
Start with Claude Opus 4.6
The charts below split 10 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.
Model compare Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 2.0 Proclaude-opus-4-6-vs-gemini-2-0-pro | Model A Claude Opus 4.6 | Model B Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Overall leader | Leading | Contender |
| Verified metric wins | 5 wins | 1 wins |
| Where it leads | Cheapest input price, First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent tests | Average speed |
| Model metadata | Claude Opus 4.6 exposes 1M tokens; notable signals: Text input, Image input, File input, Text output. | No OpenRouter metadata is available yet for this model. |
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | No data |
| Max output | 128K tokens | No data |
| Released | Apr 2026 | No data |
| Modalities | Input TextImageFile Output Text | No data |
| Features | Text inputImage inputFile inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning | None listed |
| Parameters | No data | No data |
| Tokenizer | Claude | No data |
| Knowledge cutoff | No data | No data |
| OpenRouter ID | anthropic/claude-opus-4.6-fast | No data |
| References | No data | No data |
Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 45.7%#20 | 31.3%#87 |
| GPQA | 84.0%#38 | 62.2%#100 |
| HLE | 18.6%#43 | 6.8%#79 |
Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.
| Provider | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| No completed audits are available from shared providers yet. | ||
Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.
| Provider | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
KKSJ-AI5 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Gemini 2.0 Pro speed / latency 49 tok/s / 1774ms input / output No data |
毫秒API3 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Gemini 2.0 Pro speed / latency 70 tok/s / 7126ms input / output No data |
AIHubMix0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Gemini 2.0 Pro speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
AIO通用智能服务平台0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data | Gemini 2.0 Pro speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data |
CHB API0 tests | Claude Opus 4.6 claude-opus-4-6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output $0.068/M / $0.342/M | Gemini 2.0 Pro gemini-2.0-pro-exp speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output $0.014/M / $0.055/M |
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-opus-4-6-thinking speed / latency No data input / output $0.685/M / $3.42/M | Gemini 2.0 Pro gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05 speed / latency No data input / output $0.685/M / $2.74/M | |
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-opus-4-6-high speed / latency No data input / output $2.45/M / $12.24/M | Gemini 2.0 Pro gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05 speed / latency No data input / output $1.22/M / $4.90/M |
This report only uses LMSpeed data for Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 2.0 Pro: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
| Guidance | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| When to choose each model | Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 is stronger when you prioritize Cheapest input price, First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent tests. | Gemini 2.0 Pro Gemini 2.0 Pro is stronger when you prioritize Average speed. |
TL;DR: Claude Opus 4.6 leads across 62 verifiable data points, including pricing, speed, latency, benchmarks, and provider examples.
Continue from Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro into nearby model comparisons with enough verified LMSpeed data.
Rankings are based on community-submitted tests and periodic health probes. Advisory only, not official data.
