Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 5 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 21
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.32 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 88.3 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 88.3% to 73.2%.
Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 6.7x on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 588.3 | Margin← 15.1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 581.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 576.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 557.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 88.3%B 73.2%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 15.1CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 51M | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 81.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1607 | 642 | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 46.7% | 6.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.4% | 7.1% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1388 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 39.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 28.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 12.2% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 38.46% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 61.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.5% | 34.7% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.6% | 41.9% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 0.00% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.4% | 25.0% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | 82.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 16.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.3% | -15.5% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.3% | 36.4% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 37.3% | 81.6% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 88.3% and 73.2%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.