Which model is better: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (160ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 72 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 78.5% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$1.25
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 2.4x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$10.00
Gemini 2.5 Pro (33.3% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.300
$0.313
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 1.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.75
$1.25
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 3.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
1,024k (66k out)
Gemini 2.5 Pro (5.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
540ms
700ms
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (160ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
72 tok/s
80 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro (+8 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
70.3%
63.8%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+6.5% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
78.5%
74%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+4.5% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
88%
85.2%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+2.8% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
96.2%
95%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (+1.2% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
54.3 / 100
56.8 / 100
Gemini 2.5 Pro (+2.5 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google) for long-context document and video analysis, large codebase ingestion, and multimodal reasoning — offering a 1,024k context window, 700ms TTFT, and $1.25/1M input pricing ($0.312/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper at $1.25/1M input tokens ($10.00/1M output) compared to $3.00/1M input ($15.00/1M output) for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers faster first-token latency at 540ms TTFT (72 tok/s throughput) compared to 700ms TTFT (80 tok/s) for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
How do Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.5 Pro compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 70.3% versus 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 78.5% versus 74% for Gemini 2.5 Pro (and 96.2% vs 95% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet?
Choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Anthropic) for full-stack repository development, complex code refactoring, and agentic tool use with predictable prompt cache economics — offering a 204k context window, 540ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.300/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google) for long-context document and video analysis, large codebase ingestion, and multimodal reasoning — offering a 1,024k context window, 700ms TTFT, and $1.25/1M input pricing ($0.312/1M cached reads).
