Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGemini 2.5 Flash
Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.5 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 | $0.30 |
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 | $2.50 |
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 | $0.03 |
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. | 91% | 19% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | 79.6% | — |
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. | 30% | — |
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. | 54% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 69.5% | — |
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. | 62% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 33.2% | — |
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. | 58.3% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.9% | — |
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. | 72.5% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 51% | — |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1676 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 72.4% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74.5% | — |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 6.7% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 84.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Feb 17 2026 | Apr 17 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 2.5 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Sonnet 4.6vsMuse GlimmerGemini 2.5 FlashvsMuse GlimmerClaude Sonnet 4.6vsGrok 4.6Gemini 2.5 FlashvsGrok 4.6Claude Sonnet 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 2.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Sonnet 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 4.6vsKimi K3Gemini 2.5 FlashvsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads Gemini 2.5 Flash on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.30 vs $3.00 per million input tokens, and $2.50 vs $15.00 per million output tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash shipped 306 days before Claude Sonnet 4.6, 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 4.6 leads at 91% vs Gemini 2.5 Flash at 19%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released by Anthropic on Feb 17 2026.
Gemini 2.5 Flash was released by Google on Apr 17 2025.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $0.30 vs $3.00 per million input tokens, and $2.50 vs $15.00 per million output tokens. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.