Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Quality coding model vs. very-long-context multimodal model.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google Gemini |
| Input / 1M | $5.00 | $2.00 |
| Output / 1M | $25.00 | $12.00 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.50 (−90%) | $0.20 (−90%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $8.14 | $3.76 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Cache capture | 93% | 82% |
| Warm TTFT | 240ms (−68%) | 360ms (−56%) |
| Quality index | 97 | 94 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Coding and tool-heavy agents where explicit caching and capture predictability matter most.
Multimodal or document-scale work that needs the larger window and implicit caching convenience.
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 for predictable coding economics; pick Gemini 3.1 Pro when context length and modalities dominate the decision.
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, answered.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, Claude Opus 4.8 blends to about $8.14 per 1M tokens and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview to about $3.76. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has the larger window: 1M vs 1M tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
Claude Opus 4.8 shows higher measured cache capture (93% vs 82%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.