Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
7.8pts
← winning
57.25/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Pro share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 4 to Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
13
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
4
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 57.25. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66 against 27.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 49% to 18.8%.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 2.5 Pro. Gemini 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGemini 2.5 Pro
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin← 38.6Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin← 14.8Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 5.3Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapGemini 2.5 ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapGemini 2.5 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Gemini 2.5 Pro

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 18.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 30.2
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 32.400%B 14.138%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 18.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 14.138%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 63.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 15.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 83%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 6.9
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 8.300%B 4.167%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 4.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 4.167%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 outputGemini 2.5 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/sGemini 2.5 Pro has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGemini 2.5 Pro21.19 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGemini 2.5 Pro1MGemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%54.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%42.01%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —7.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —8.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —665Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%63.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%0.40%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%42.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —33.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%66.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
CritPtSource 0.9%2.6%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
GPQASource 89.9%83%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%18.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%25.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%84.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%21.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-14.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%39.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%87.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MathClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%14.138%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%4.167%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%74.9%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13171199Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 2.5 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%48.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 49% and 18.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 27.4. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 63.8. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 26.4 versus 11.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.