Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.
The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 5.67s | 1.86s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 182 | 6 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0092 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 67.25% | 89.96% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | 1.32s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 115 | 10 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | $0.0003 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | 91.9%(91/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | 100%(30/30) |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology