Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
No comparison
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 12 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 9 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
21
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
9
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.6 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 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 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 3.5 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 14.9Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin← 1.8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 54%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 5.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 72.1%B 74%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteΔ 1.9
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 72.1%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 74%. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 outputGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1MGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%54%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%74%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1140Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —26.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —634Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
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%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%40.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —54.0%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —54.2%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —49.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%62.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MRCRv2Source —72.2%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
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%36.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%83.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%17.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%6.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%30.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%33.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%79.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 63.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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 21, 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.