Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 6 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 32
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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 Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77.3 against 73.2.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone.
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 Opus 4.6 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin← 4.1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Claude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 31.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 38.46% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 6.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 12.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 7.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 642 | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | 0.00% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 41.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 25.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 82.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 16.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -15.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 36.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 81.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 75.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 77.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 50.83.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.3 versus 73.2. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro 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.