Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Gemini 3.6 Flash #9 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 60 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 2 to Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 60
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 75.54. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 83.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.6 Flash. That is roughly 3.3x 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 5 | Δ | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 7.8 | Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1423 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 38.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 46.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | 24.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 964 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 77.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | 49% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 69.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 52.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 50.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 92.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 38.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 23.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 50.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 83.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 75.54.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 83. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.