Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 65.2
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 77.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 64.53, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
10 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.
12 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
10 Shared
13 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 12
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Math
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 26.4
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 66.0
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 40.2
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 77.4
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 83.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 69.1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 74.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 65.2 | 77.2 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| Math | 26.4 | 32.9 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| Knowledge | 66.0 | 40.2 | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 77.4 | 83.8 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 69.1 | 55.1 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 74.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 59.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash: 76.2%Normalized gap 17.1Claude Sonnet 4.6 source Gemini 3.5 Flash sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 49%Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Normalized gap 8.8Claude Sonnet 4.6 source Gemini 3.5 Flash sourceCharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash: 84.2%Normalized gap 6.8Claude Sonnet 4.6 source Gemini 3.5 Flash sourceFrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 72.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash: 78.4%Normalized gap 6.3Claude Sonnet 4.6 source Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 4.6
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 4.6
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
Gemini 3.5 Flash
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not published
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
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 has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 64.53, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.102. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.15.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 evidence35 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.659.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 4.667.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 4.665.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.662.92%Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.679.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.651.48%Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
cursorBench31
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.648.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.620.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
CADGenBench Generation
Claude Sonnet 4.622.1%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.689.9%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.695%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.679.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.649%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.632.400%Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Sonnet 4.68.300%Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 64.67 versus 64.53, 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 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.6 and $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.102; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.15. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.