Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash was superseded by Gemini 3.8 Flash. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Claude Opus 5.5 leads overall, C+ to C. Claude Opus 5.5 is about 3.2x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Claude Opus 5.5 takes vibe coding (B to C+). Take Gemini 3.6 Flash anyway when you want the side that is faster on real-world issues.Measured
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
Verdict: Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 leads overall, C+ to C. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 60% capability); Claude Opus 5.5 takes vibe coding, B to C+ (85% vs 72% capability). Only Claude Opus 5.5 has run spec planning. Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Claude Opus 5.5 used 1% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit per pass, $0.012 per task at the listed price. Per task, Claude Opus 5.5 is about 3.2x cheaper ($0.012 vs $0.039). Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 2m 17s against 2m 18s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Gemini 3.6 Flash anyway: it is faster on real-world issues (2m 17s vs 2m 18s median).
No change since W32.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Opus 5.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 60% | Even |
| Median task time | 2m 17s | 2m 18s | 1s faster (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.039 / task | $0.015 / task | $0.023 / task lower (Claude Opus 5.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 12.6% of Google AI Pro (about 72.1% / 5h, 12.6% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Claude Opus 5.5: 16.0% of Claude Max 5x (16.0% / 5h, 1.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 14.6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Only Claude Opus 5.5 has run this suite, so there is no head-to-head yet.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Opus 5.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 72% | 85% | +13% (Claude Opus 5.5 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 54s | 2m 27s | 33s faster (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.038 / task | $0.046 / task | $0.008 / task lower (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 0.8% of Google AI Pro (4.9% / 5h, 0.8% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Claude Opus 5.5: 0.8% of Claude Max 5x (0.8% / 5h, 0.2% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 14.6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Claude Opus 5.5?
They are even on our ladder: both clear tier 4 of 5 at 60% capability on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-10.
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Claude Opus 5.5?
Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Claude Opus 5.5 used 1% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit per pass, $0.012 per task at the listed price. Per task, Claude Opus 5.5 is about 3.2x cheaper ($0.012 vs $0.039).