Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (Supported); Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 10 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 11 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 6
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude 4 Sonnet makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude 4 Sonnet and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4 Sonnet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 4 Sonnet | Δ | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin← 18.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4 Sonnet | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.66% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 18.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 54% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 74% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 26.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 634 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | 36.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 83.8% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | 17.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | 6.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | 30.3% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | 33.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude 4 Sonnet and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.