DEV Community

Cover image for Best AI Model 2025: Claude 4.5 vs ChatGPT 5.1 vs Gemini 3
Emily Foster
Emily Foster

Posted on

Best AI Model 2025: Claude 4.5 vs ChatGPT 5.1 vs Gemini 3

#webdev #ai #programming #productivity

In the closing stretch of 2025, three frontier models have effectively defined the state of AI: Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.5, OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.1 (GPT-5.1), and Google DeepMind’s Gemini 3 Pro. Each sits at the top of its respective stack. Each claims “state-of-the-art” status. And each is, in practice, very good at slightly different things.

All three are:

  • Large, transformer-based systems with frontier-scale training runs
  • Tuned with some mix of RLHF, AI feedback, and heavy agent/tool-use data
  • Capable of multi-step reasoning, coding, and handling massive context windows

But if you’re a developer, architect, or product lead, the question is not “which is best in the abstract?” It’s which one is best for my workload – and when does the answer change?

This deep dive compares Claude Opus 4.5, ChatGPT 5.1, and Gemini 3 Pro across:

  • Knowledge & reasoning benchmarks
  • Coding and agentic tool use
  • Long-horizon reasoning modes
  • Context window & multimodality
  • Speed, latency, and pricing
  • Practical fit by use case

1. 2025 Frontier LLMs at a Glance

1.1 Quick Model Profiles

  • Claude Opus 4.5 (Anthropic)

    Flagship of the Claude 4.5 family (Haiku → Sonnet → Opus). Marketed as “our best model for coding, agents, and computer use.” Strong emphasis on software engineering, tool calling, and long-context reliability, with heavy investment in alignment and safety.

  • ChatGPT 5.1 / GPT-5.1 (OpenAI)

    Successor to the GPT-5 line, shipped in two public-facing flavors: Instant (fast, conversational) and Thinking (deeper reasoning). Built on an upgraded foundational reasoning model and widely exposed via the ChatGPT product stack and API. Known for balanced capability + polished UX.

  • Gemini 3 Pro (Google DeepMind)

    Top-tier Gemini 3 model and Google’s most advanced multimodal system. Natively processes text, images, audio, and video with a 1M-token context. Designed to excel at hard reasoning benchmarks and at acting as a tool-using agent (especially in Google’s Antigravity and Vertex AI ecosystems).

At a high level:

  • Gemini 3 Pro: strongest on the hardest reasoning and multimodal exams
  • Claude Opus 4.5: best measured coding performance and agentic computer use
  • ChatGPT 5.1: most balanced generalist and the most refined conversational experience

2. Knowledge & Reasoning: Who Thinks Best on Paper?

2.1 Academic Knowledge (MMLU, PiQA, GPQA)

On broad knowledge tests (MMLU, PiQA, etc.), all three models hover around or above human-expert performance:

  • Gemini 3 Pro:

    • Around 90%+ on multi-task academic suites (MMLU-style)
    • 91.9% on GPQA Diamond – a notoriously hard graduate-level QA benchmark It currently tops several public Elo leaderboards for general reasoning.

  • GPT-5.1:

    • Roughly ~91% on MMLU, essentially tied with Gemini for mainstream knowledge
    • Comparable performance on standard QA and reasoning sets GPT-5.1 is rarely the absolute best, but it is consistently strong across categories.

  • Claude Opus 4.5:

    • Anthropic doesn’t publish a headline MMLU score for Opus 4.5; its sibling Sonnet 4.5 lands in the high-80s% range, and Opus appears similar or slightly stronger on academic tasks
    • Its main emphasis is not exam performance but coding and computer use, where it leads.

So for classic “can it pass the test?” style benchmarking, Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.1 are essentially tied at the top, with Opus close behind.

2.2 Frontier Reasoning (HLE, ARC-AGI, Math-heavy Eval)

The gap widens on intentionally brutal reasoning exams:

  • Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE)

    • Gemini 3 Pro: ~37.5% (no external tools)
    • GPT-5.1: ~26.8%
    • Previous Claude generations: ~13–14%

  • ARC-AGI-style reasoning

    • Gemini 3 Pro: ~31% in standard mode, rising to ~45% with “Deep Think” enabled
    • GPT-5.1: ~18%
    • Earlier Claude models: below GPT-5.1 on this axis

The pattern is clear:

Gemini 3 Pro is currently the best pure reasoning engine on the hardest synthetic tasks, especially when allowed to think longer.

GPT-5.1 remains competitive and often “good enough” for real-world reasoning, while Claude Opus 4.5 trades some frontier-reasoning points for gains in coding and safety.

3. Coding & Agentic Tool Use: Where Claude Opus 4.5 Pulls Ahead

3.1 SWE-Bench and Real-World Coding Metrics

On SWE-Bench Verified – a benchmark built from real GitHub issues with test suites –

  • Claude Opus 4.5: ~80.9%
  • GPT-5.1 Codex-Max: ~77.9%
  • Gemini 3 Pro: ~76% (approximate reported range)

Claude Opus 4.5 is the first model to break the 80% barrier on SWE-Bench Verified, edging out both OpenAI’s and Google’s latest coding agents by a few points. In practice this translates to:

  • More real bugs fixed correctly on first pass
  • Fewer back-and-forth attempts to satisfy test suites
  • Better performance on large, messy codebases

Anthropic also reports that Opus 4.5 can match or beat previous Claude versions while using 50–70% fewer tokens for the same coding tasks, which matters for both latency and cost.

3.2 Tool Use: Terminals, Browsers and “Computer Use”

All three models can now use tools – but they specialize differently.

  • Claude Opus 4.5

    • Strongest showing on coding + terminal benchmarks (Terminal-Bench style evals)
    • Excellent at Anthropic’s “Computer Use” interface: it can control a virtual desktop, click, scroll, type, and now zoom into specific UI regions to read small text
    • Very effective as an “autonomous engineer” driving a shell, editor, and browser in concert

  • GPT-5.1 Codex-Max

    • Deeply integrated into OpenAI’s CLI, IDE extensions and code review tools
    • Uses compaction to maintain working memory over multi-hour coding sessions
    • First OpenAI agentic model with strong Windows + PowerShell support, reducing friction for enterprise dev teams

  • Gemini 3 Pro

    • At the core of Google Antigravity, an IDE-like environment where Gemini agents control a code editor, terminal and browser
    • Very strong on tool-oriented benchmarks where success depends on calling the right command-line tools in sequence
    • Multimodal advantage: can read a Figma mockup or screenshot and generate matching code directly

If your top priority is “fix this codebase and run the tools for me”, Claude Opus 4.5 currently has the cleanest record, with GPT-5.1 and Gemini 3 extremely close behind.

4. Long-Horizon Reasoning: How Each Model “Thinks Longer”

4.1 OpenAI GPT-5.1: Instant vs Thinking with Compaction

OpenAI split GPT-5.1 into two user-facing modes:

  • ChatGPT 5.1 Instant – tuned for speed and conversational polish
  • ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking – the heavyweight reasoning variant

The underlying GPT-5.1 model uses compaction:

  • As a session grows, it periodically summarizes and prunes older context, keeping essential instructions and facts
  • This allows single agent runs lasting 24+ hours while staying coherent, effectively chaining multiple context windows together

From a developer’s perspective, this means:

You can delegate multi-hour coding or analysis tasks to GPT-5.1 and expect it to keep track of what it already tried, which tests passed, and which hypotheses failed.

4.2 Claude Opus 4.5: Effort Parameter and Persistent “Thinking Blocks”

Anthropic takes a slightly different path:

  • Effort parameter

    • Controls how many tokens Opus 4.5 spends thinking and explaining
    • Low Effort: concise, cheaper, good for high-volume tasks
    • High Effort: exhaustive reasoning traces, suitable for deep debugging or complex strategic decisions

  • Persistent reasoning

    • Opus 4.5 retains its internal “thinking blocks” across turns
    • That previous scratchpad can be reused later in the conversation, improving consistency over 30-hour sessions and beyond

Opus is effectively designed to behave like a very persistent senior engineer: it remembers how it reasoned about a complex bug many messages ago and continues where it left off.

4.3 Gemini 3 Pro: Deep Think for Frontier Puzzles

Google’s answer is Gemini 3 Deep Think:

  • A mode that allocates extra internal computation to hard problems
  • Materially boosts scores on HLE, ARC-AGI, and similar frontier evaluations
  • Explicitly optimized for multi-step planning and long solution chains

In day-to-day terms, Deep Think is what you reach for when you want the model to behave like a specialist in contest math, algorithm design, or intricate logic puzzles, even if it takes longer.

5. Context Windows & Multimodality: How Much Can They Hold?

5.1 Token Context Capacity

  • Claude Opus 4.5

    • ~200,000-token context out of the box
    • Enough for hundreds of pages of text or substantial monorepos
    • Anthropic also experiments with 1M-context pricing tiers, but 200k is the mainstream setting

  • GPT-5.1

    • Public deployments around 128k tokens per prompt for ChatGPT/Enterprise variants
    • Compaction effectively gives “unbounded” session length by rolling up old context
    • Very well suited to long-running chats where the model must remember older decisions

  • Gemini 3 Pro

    • Headline feature: 1,048,576-token context (≈1M)
    • Can combine text, PDFs, images, audio, and video within the same prompt
    • Supports workloads like “feed the model a book, a design deck, and a product video, then ask for a coherent synthesis”

5.2 Multimodal Capabilities

All three support text + images. Gemini 3 Pro goes further:

  • Strong results on MMMU-Pro and Video-MMMU for multimodal reasoning
  • Direct intake of screenshots, Figma designs, product demo videos, lecture recordings and more
  • Can turn those into code, structured notes, or comparison matrices in one shot

OpenAI and Anthropic both have vision-capable models, but Gemini 3 Pro’s native multimodal design + 1M context make it the most natural choice for workloads where images and video are first-class citizens.

6. Speed, Latency & Pricing: How Much Does All This Cost?

6.1 Latency: Fast Enough for Interactive Use?

Rough qualitative picture:

  • ChatGPT 5.1 Instant

    • Optimized for snappy replies – suitable for chat UIs and interactive coding assistants
    • Thinking mode takes longer on difficult tasks but remains reasonable for most workflows

  • Claude Opus 4.5

    • On High Effort it can generate very long, detailed outputs, which naturally incurs some latency
    • On Medium/Low Effort, Anthropic reports Opus 4.5 solving tasks with similar accuracy to earlier models while using 48–76% fewer tokens, which directly speeds up responses

  • Gemini 3 Pro

    • For small prompts, latency is comparable to its peers
    • For 1M-token or heavy multimodal inputs, you pay in both time and tokens – which is expected at that scale
    • Google also provides lighter variants (e.g. “Flash”) when ultra-low latency is more important than peak IQ

For interactive apps with modest prompt sizes, all three are usable in “near real time.” The differences become visible on very large or very complex jobs.

6.2 Pricing & Cost Efficiency

Approximate API-level pricing for frontier tiers (per 1M tokens, late 2025; exact numbers will vary by plan and region):

  • ChatGPT / GPT-5.1

    • Around $1–1.5 input, $10 output
    • Generally the cheapest per token among the three

  • Claude Opus 4.5

    • About $5 input, $25 output
    • Roughly ⅓ the price of the older Opus 4.1 (which was $15 / $75)
    • More expensive than GPT-5.1 per token, but significantly more token-efficient on many tasks

  • Gemini 3 Pro

    • Roughly $2 input, $12 output in the standard 200k context range
    • Higher rates if you push all the way to the 1M-token context tier

So in raw per-token terms, GPT-5.1 is the bargain, Gemini is mid-pack, and Opus is the premium option. However:

Because Claude Opus 4.5 often uses far fewer tokens to reach the same outcome (especially on coding and agentic tasks), total cost per solved task can be closer than the headline prices suggest.

For short Q&A, GPT-5.1 usually wins on cost. For big, complex coding jobs, the efficiency argument for Claude Opus 4.5 becomes compelling. Gemini 3 Pro’s value is maximized when you actually exploit its multimodal and 1M-context advantages.

7. How to Choose the Best LLM for Your Use Case in 2025

7.1 If You Care About Raw Reasoning and Multimodal Scale

Pick Google Gemini 3 Pro when:

  • You need top-tier performance on the hardest reasoning problems
  • Your workflows involve video, images, audio and long documents together
  • You plan to embed the model deeply into Google Cloud / Vertex AI / Antigravity-style environments

Gemini 3 Pro feels closest to a general-purpose analyst that happens to read everything – PDFs, screen recordings, design files – in one go.

7.2 If You Need the Strongest Coding & Agentic Behavior

Choose Claude Opus 4.5 when:

  • Your primary workload is software engineering: large refactors, bug fixing, code review
  • You want an AI that can drive a shell, browser, and editor as an autonomous agent
  • You care about alignment and safety as much as capability, especially in enterprise settings

Claude Opus 4.5 leads on SWE-Bench, excels at long-horizon coding, and comes with one of the most detailed system cards and safety analyses in the industry.

7.3 If You Want a Polished Generalist and Ecosystem Integrations

Use ChatGPT 5.1 when:

  • You need a default assistant for everything from brainstorming to prototyping to customer support
  • You care about UX polish, plugins, and integration with existing ChatGPT workflows
  • Cost per token is a major consideration and you can benefit from Instant vs Thinking modes

ChatGPT 5.1 is the most approachable “all-rounder”: very strong reasoning, excellent conversation quality, and a mature ecosystem around it.

7.4 The Smart 2025 Strategy: Route Across All Three

For serious AI teams, the emerging pattern is:

  • Plan & spec with Claude or ChatGPT – use their conversational strength to clarify requirements
  • Deep research and multimodal analysis with Gemini 3 Pro – especially for large, messy inputs
  • Heavy coding and agentic tasks with Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-5.1 Codex-Max – depending on pricing and integration preferences
  • Customer-facing chat with ChatGPT 5.1 Instant – to maximize responsiveness and user experience

In other words, the “one model to rule them all” era is over. The frontier has fragmented into a small number of highly capable specialists, and the winning move is to route tasks intelligently.

8. Final Thoughts: A Frontier Defined by Trade-Offs, Not Absolutes

Claude Opus 4.5, ChatGPT 5.1 and Gemini 3 Pro all deserve the “frontier model” label. They each:

  • Operate at or above human expert level on many standardized tests
  • Support huge contexts and sustained reasoning
  • Drive tools and act as agents, not just text predictors

Yet they are not interchangeable:

  • Gemini 3 Pro is the reasoning and multimodal powerhouse with a 1M-token memory.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 is the coding and agent specialist with a strong alignment story.
  • ChatGPT 5.1 is the best everyday companion with the broadest, most mature ecosystem.

As these systems converge towards similar headline scores, the real differentiators move to shape and philosophy: how they reason, how they behave under pressure, what trade-offs they make between speed and depth, and how safely they can be deployed in the wild.

For teams building on top of them, the right question in late 2025 isn’t “Which model is best?” but “Which model is best for this specific job – and how do I orchestrate several of them together?”

That’s the new reality of frontier AI: multi-model, multi-modal, and relentlessly comparative.

Top comments (1)

Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.