Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Anthropic, Google
Recommended Pick
Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
100.0 value score
62.8 reasoning / $3.38/1M
Lowest Price
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
$1.50/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
62.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
46.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) is 2.0x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) generates about 4.4x as many tokens per second as Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) leads Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) by 17.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) by 1.4 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Top Pick Go Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.00/1M | $1.50/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $9.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00/1M | $3.38/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2026 | May 19, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 49.9 tok/s | 219.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1150ms | 16857ms |
| Latency | 1150ms | 16857ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 41.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.8 | 62.8 |
| Intelligence | 44.4 | 55.3 |
| Coding | 46.4 | 45.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.9% | 92.2% |
| HLE | 13.2% | 41.0% |
| SciCode | 46.9% | 53.1% |
| LCR | 57.7% | 69.3% |
| IFBench | 41.2% | 76.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 79.5% | 95.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 46.2% | 40.9% |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) offers the best value at $1.50/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 62.8 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 46.4 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 Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Code generation
- Software development
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
