Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 vs Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05
Side-by-side specs, pricing, and benchmarks. Pick a winner for your team's use case.
Use it in a Space
Spin up a Switchy Space with either model — your whole team @-mentions it with shared context, pooled credits, one memory.
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5
- Provider
- anthropic
- Context
- 200k
- Input $/Mtok
- $5.00
- Output $/Mtok
- $25.00
- Max output
- 64000
- Modalities
- file, image, text
Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05
- Provider
- Context
- 1049k
- Input $/Mtok
- $1.25
- Output $/Mtok
- $10.00
- Max output
- 65536
- Modalities
- file, image, text, audio
Price delta
Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 is $3.75/Mtok more expensive than Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 on input. Output: Anthropic: Claude Opus 4.5 is $15.00/Mtok more expensive than Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05.
Which to pick
Pick **Claude Opus 4.5** when you need the strongest reasoning per turn — multi-step planning, careful refactor proposals, dense legal or research synthesis where the answer matters more than the bill. Opus consistently leads on the hardest reasoning evals and on tasks that require holding many constraints at once.
Pick **Gemini 2.5 Pro** when context length wins the trade-off. Its 1M-token window (5x Opus's 200k) makes it the practical choice for ingesting an entire codebase, a multi-hundred-page brief, or a full quarter of meeting transcripts in one turn — and at $1.25 in / $10 out per Mtok it costs an order of magnitude less on input than Opus's $15. Reach for Pro when "fit it all in one prompt" is the constraint, Opus when "think harder about a smaller window" is.