Model Comparison
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning)
vs. Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, Google
Recommended Pick
Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) 8 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Intelligence, Coding
Lowest Price
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning)
54.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal)
47.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal).
Reasoning gap
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) leads Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) by 4.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) leads Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) by 19.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) wins 8 measurable categories, including Throughput, Intelligence, Coding, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Top Pick Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $1.50/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $9.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $3.38/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Release Date | Feb 24, 2025 | May 19, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 202.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 863ms |
| Latency | — | 863ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 54.0 | 49.7 |
| Intelligence | 34.7 | 43.3 |
| Coding | 27.6 | 47.1 |
| Math | 56.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 77.2% | 82.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.7% | — |
| HLE | 10.3% | 23.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 47.3% | — |
| MATH 500 | 94.7% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 56.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 48.7% | — |
| SciCode | 40.3% | 48.8% |
| LCR | 60.7% | 53.3% |
| IFBench | 48.3% | 47.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 54.7% | 58.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 21.2% | 46.2% |
Key Takeaways
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 54.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) reaches a 47.1 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 3.7 Sonnet (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal)
- Code generation
- Software development
