Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (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 Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 5 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 18
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 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 or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 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 Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 50.83. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77.4 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 77.4% to 73.2%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | Margin← 4.2 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 77.4%B 73.2%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 4.2CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 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 Sonnet 4.644 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 Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 31.3% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | 38.46% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | 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 |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | 0.00% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 41.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 25.0% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 82.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 16.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | -15.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 36.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 81.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
Math2 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 77.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 77.4% and 73.2%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 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.