Claude Sonnet 4.5vsGemini 3.6 Flash
Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $3.00 | $0.75 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $15.00 | $3.75 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.30 | $0.075 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $3.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 79% | 39% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 61.4% | 83% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 7.3% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 32.2% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 37.3% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 77.2% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 49% |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 63.9% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 46% | — |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 13.6% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.4% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1421 |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 29 2025 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.5vsGPT-6 AstraGemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-6 AstraClaude Sonnet 4.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Sonnet 4.5vsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.6Claude Sonnet 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Sonnet 4.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 4.5vsKimi K3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, OSWorld-Verified). Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.75 vs $3.00 per million input tokens, and $3.75 vs $15.00 per million output tokens. Claude Sonnet 4.5 shipped 295 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads at 79% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 39%. On OSWorld-Verified, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads at 83% vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 at 61.4%.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 was released by Anthropic on Sep 29 2025.
Gemini 3.6 Flash was released by Google on Jul 21 2026.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.75 vs $3.00 per million input tokens, and $3.75 vs $15.00 per million output tokens. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.