Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 44.6
- Estimated · #100/151
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
9 Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
2 Shared
8 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 9
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 51.0
- Estimated · #67/183
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 51.6
- Estimated · #81/181
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 19.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 34.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 44.6Estimated · #100/151 | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 51.0Estimated · #67/183 | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 51.6Estimated · #81/181 | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 19.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 34.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 76.1#16/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 61.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 74%Normalized gap 12.6Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceTerminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 50%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54%Normalized gap 4.0Claude Sonnet 4.5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
200K
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not published
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideReasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.5
2025-09-01
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0225. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.037.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence19 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.548.51%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 51 to 43.6. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.6 to 43.4. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.5 and $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0225; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.037. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.