Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro 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
Gemini 3 Pro is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is Anthropic's mid-tier large language model, released February 17, 2026, designed to balance performance, cost, and versatility for professional and developer use. It supports text and vision-based tasks with advanced reasoning, agentic capabilities, and Adaptive Thinking — a mode where the model dynamically scales its internal reasoning depth. A beta context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens (200K standard) enables processing of entire codebases or document collections in a single request. Parameters are undisclosed.
Optimized for coding, computer use, long-context reasoning, agent planning, and knowledge work, Sonnet 4.6 delivers a full generational upgrade over Sonnet 4.5 and approaches Opus 4.5-level performance across many benchmarks at a fraction of the cost. It is the default model on Claude.ai, Claude Cowork, and is available via API and major cloud platforms — making it well suited for production workloads requiring strong reasoning without flagship pricing.
Gemini 3 Pro is Google DeepMind’s flagship multimodal frontier model, built for high-accuracy reasoning and large-scale context understanding across text, images, audio, video, code, and documents. It delivers major gains over Gemini 2.5 Pro, supported by a 1M-token window and strong performance on Google-reported benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond, MMMU-Pro, and Video-MMMU.
The model excels at structured outputs, tool use, and agentic coding, enabling complex multi-step workflows and analysis of entire books, codebases, or long videos in a single prompt. Positioned as Google’s top production model, it balances advanced reasoning with broad multimodal capabilities, making it well suited for research assistants, automation agents, coding systems, and enterprise-scale document and media analysis.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.24s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 105 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0080 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 81.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 3.42s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 736 | |
| Median output tokens | 85 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0035 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 85.9%(85/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 73.3%(44/60) | |
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