Claude Sonnet 5vsGemini 2.0 Flash
Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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. | 80%Best | 15% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers 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. | 0.6% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers 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. | 4.7% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers 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. | 5.9% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 63.2% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 61.5% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 61.2% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel'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. | 79% | — |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 95.5% | — |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · no skillsThe same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 90.9% | — |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 14.6% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 80.4% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 84.7% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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. | 43.2% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 57.4% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 81.2% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1618 | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1463 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1543 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Jun 30 2026 | Jan 30 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads Gemini 2.0 Flash on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Gemini 2.0 Flash shipped 516 days before Claude Sonnet 5, 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 5 leads at 80% vs Gemini 2.0 Flash at 15%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 5 was released by Anthropic on Jun 30 2026.
Gemini 2.0 Flash was released by Google on Jan 30 2025.
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGemini 2.0 FlashvsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude Sonnet 5vsMuse GlimmerGemini 2.0 FlashvsMuse GlimmerClaude Sonnet 5vsGrok 4.6Gemini 2.0 FlashvsGrok 4.6Claude Sonnet 5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 2.0 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Sonnet 5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 2.0 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 5vsKimi K3Gemini 2.0 FlashvsKimi K3