Multimodal
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 88.3
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 73.2
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 50.51, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
18 Claude Sonnet 5 only
1 Shared
2 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 18
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 81.9
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 76.7
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 57.4
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 88.3 | 73.2 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Agentic | 81.9 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 76.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 57.4 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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.
CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: 73.2%Normalized gap 15.1Claude Sonnet 5 source Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.001
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.017
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.025
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
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 5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
2026-03-03
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
- Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 50.51, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.017. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.025.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence21 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5—Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Sonnet 546.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Sonnet 540.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Sonnet 539.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Sonnet 5—Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 50.51, 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 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
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 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.001 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.017; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.025. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 14, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.