Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Gemini 3.6 Flash unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 18 to Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 11
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.5 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Gemini 3.6 Flash is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.6 Flash. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.6 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 3.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
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 Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | Margin→ 27.6 | Gemini 3.6 Flash83.0 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 61.4%B 83%Winner: Gemini 3.6 FlashΔ 21.6OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 61.4%; Gemini 3.6 Flash scored 83%. Gemini 3.6 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 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 Sonnet 4.5Not available | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Gemini 3.6 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | Gemini 3.6 Flash1M | Gemini 3.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | 83% | Gemini 3.6 Flash leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1421 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 38.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 961 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 24.5% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 77.5% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 38.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 23.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 55.4. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified 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.