Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Gemini 2.0 Pro by Google and Claude 3.7 Sonnet by Anthropic represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, Gemini 2.0 Pro holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, Gemini 2.0 Pro is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, Gemini 2.0 Pro provides an expanded memory horizon with 2,000K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Gemini 2.0 Pro leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
任意のAIモデルを切り替えて比較
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Gemini 2.0 Pro
高度な推論モデルGoogle が提供する Gemini 2.0 Pro は、最大 2M トークンのコンテキストウィンドウを備え、入力 $1.25/100万トークン・出力 $5/100万トークンで利用可能な、コーディング・推論・業務自動化向け AI モデルです。
$1.25 / 1M
$5.00 / 1M
2M tokens
63.8%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
高度な推論モデルAnthropic が提供する Claude 3.7 Sonnet は、最大 200K トークンのコンテキストウィンドウを備え、入力 $3/100万トークン・出力 $15/100万トークンで利用可能な、コーディング・推論・業務自動化向け AI モデルです。
$3.00 / 1M
$15.00 / 1M
200K tokens
70.3%
ひと目でわかる主な違い
- Gemini 2.0 Pro is 2.7x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Gemini 2.0 Pro has a larger context window (2M vs 200K tokens).
- Gemini 2.0 Pro is faster at 95 tok/s vs 72 tok/s.
- Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads on SWE-bench coding (70.3% vs 63.8%).
| Feature | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Claude 3.7 Sonnet |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 52 | 48 |
Provider | Anthropic | |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $1.25 / 1M | $3.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $15.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.97 / 1M | $2.31 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 2M tokens~3,000 A4 pages of text | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 8K | 64K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 95 tok/s | 72 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 63.8% | 70.3% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 71.5% | 65% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.31 / 1M | $0.30 / 1M |
分野別勝者スコアカード
At-a-glance decision framework検証済みベンチマークスコア比較
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
レイテンシ＆応答時間
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
リアルタイムAPIトークン料金シミュレーター
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Gemini 2.0 Pro · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Google の高度な Multimodal Deep Reasoning Sparse MoE アーキテクチャと 2M トークンのコンテキスト処理能力
- 優れたコストパフォーマンス（入力 $1.25/1M、出力 $5/1M）と安定した応答速度
- プログラミング、論理的推論、多言語タスクにおいて高いベンチマーク精度を実現
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 大規模な長文コンテキスト処理時はトークン消費量の最適化が必要
- 専門領域のタスクでは適切なプロンプト設計や RAG の併用が推奨される
Claude 3.7 Sonnet · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Anthropic の高度な Hybrid Reasoning MoE アーキテクチャと 200K トークンのコンテキスト処理能力
- 優れたコストパフォーマンス（入力 $3/1M、出力 $15/1M）と安定した応答速度
- プログラミング、論理的推論、多言語タスクにおいて高いベンチマーク精度を実現
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 大規模な長文コンテキスト処理時はトークン消費量の最適化が必要
- 専門領域のタスクでは適切なプロンプト設計や RAG の併用が推奨される
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Claude 3.7 Sonnet |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $1.59 | $1.42 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 60K | 41K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 33K | 22K |
技術仕様・スペック
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Claude 3.7 Sonnet |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | models/gemini-2-pro | claude-3-7-sonnet-20250201 |
| API Protocol | Google Gemini API (generateContent) + OpenAI-Compatible SDK | Anthropic Messages API + AWS Bedrock + Vertex AI |
| Release Date | 2025-02 | 2025-02 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | January 2025 | November 2024 |
| Architecture | Multimodal Deep Reasoning Sparse MoE | Hybrid Reasoning MoE |
| Parameters | Confidential | Confidential |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | 10,000 – 30,000 RPM (Tier 5 Enterprise) · 4,000,000 – 10,000,000 TPM | 4,000 – 10,000 RPM (Tier 4 + Priority Tier) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPM |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Standard rate up to 200K tokens; 2x input/output tier above 200K tokens | Standard rate up to 200K tokens; 2x input/output tier above 200K tokens |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Implicit + Explicit Context Caching at $0.31/1M with configurable TTL | $0.3/1M cached read (90% off); 5-min default & 1-hour extended TTL |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Built-in Google Search Grounding + Managed Python Code Execution Sandbox | Native Web Search Citations + Code Execution Tool + MCP Connectors |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Vertex AI Supervised Adapter Tuning & Context Distillation | Custom Model Tuning via Amazon Bedrock & Prompt Distillation |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) · Audio (~25–32 tokens/sec) · Video (~258–300 tokens/sec) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Google DeepMind Frontier Safety Framework Verified | Anthropic RSP ASL-2 / ASL-3 Constitutional Safety Evaluated |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier |
| Input Modalities | text, vision, audio, video | text, vision |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet: よくある質問 (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Gemini 2.0 Pro or Claude 3.7 Sonnet?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is more intelligent. It scores 52 compared with 48 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is faster, generating 95 tokens per second compared with 72 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is cheaper at $0.97 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $2.31 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.52s compared with 0.62s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Pro has a larger context window, supporting 2M tokens compared with 200K tokens.
総合評価
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Gemini 2.0 Pro if your priority is Monolithic repository refactoring, massive legal/scientific document corpora, and video analysis. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Claude 3.7 Sonnet if your workflow prioritizes Full-stack software architecture, complex refactoring, and agentic workflows. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
よくある質問 (FAQ)
How does Gemini 2.0 Pro compare to Claude 3.7 Sonnet in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Gemini 2.0 Pro costs $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $5.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3.00 input and $15.00 output. Overall, Gemini 2.0 Pro is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Gemini 2.0 Pro or Claude 3.7 Sonnet?+
Gemini 2.0 Pro supports a context window of 2,000K tokens (~1,500k words), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet supports 200K tokens (~150k words). Therefore, Gemini 2.0 Pro can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Gemini 2.0 Pro or Claude 3.7 Sonnet?+
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores 63.8% on SWE-bench Verified while Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores 70.3%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Claude 3.7 Sonnet holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Gemini 2.0 Pro and Claude 3.7 Sonnet?+
Gemini 2.0 Pro features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, Claude 3.7 Sonnet provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Gemini 2.0 Pro and Claude 3.7 Sonnet?+
Gemini 2.0 Pro generates approximately 95 tokens per second, while Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers 72 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Gemini 2.0 Pro provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Gemini 2.0 Pro and Claude 3.7 Sonnet to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to Gemini 2.0 Pro to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to Claude 3.7 Sonnet. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs DeepSeek R1: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs GPT-4o: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs o3-mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 2.0 Pro: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
- Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 2.0 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison比較
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
公的ソース: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs