Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 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Gemini 3.6 Flash was superseded by Gemini 3.8 Flash.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.
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads overall, C to C-. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is about 13x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Gemini 3.6 Flash takes vibe coding (C+ to D+). Take Claude Sonnet 5.5 anyway when you want the side that is cheaper per task and 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 Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads overall, C to C-. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 60% capability); Gemini 3.6 Flash takes vibe coding, C+ to D+ (72% vs 48% capability). Only Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 used <1% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit per pass, $0.003 per task at the listed price. Per task, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is about 13x cheaper ($0.003 vs $0.039). Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 37s against 2m 17s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 anyway: it is cheaper per task ($0.003 vs $0.039) and it is faster on real-world issues (37s vs 2m 17s median).
No change since W32.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 60% | Even |
| Median task time | 2m 17s | 37s | 1m 40s faster (Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.039 / task | $0.002 / task | $0.037 / task lower (Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5: 4.0% of Claude Max 5x (4.0% / 5h) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 13.8 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 Sonnet 5.5 has run this suite, so there is no head-to-head yet.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 72% | 48% | +23% (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 54s | 56s | 58s faster (Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.038 / task | $0.001 / task | $0.036 / task lower (Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5: 0.2% of Claude Max 5x (0.2% / 5h) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 13.8 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 used <1% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit per pass, $0.003 per task at the listed price. Per task, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is about 13x cheaper ($0.003 vs $0.039).