Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is OCR, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 72.8% to 66.3%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 77.6% (#10 of 63) against 79.8% (#7 of 63) for Gemini 3.8 Flash.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0045 vs $0.0073 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster (8.3s vs 12.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.8 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.8 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.825
Output $/1M$10.00$4.13
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.6%
79.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0073$0.0045
Avg speed / sample8.33s12.76s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
68.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0
$0.0045
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
74.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6
$0.023
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0040
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.027
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0016
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0037
OCR (low)
66.3%
$0.0075
72.8%
$0.0049
by category
Single value
48.7%
Transcription
76.3%
Structured JSON
83.8%
Text localization
60.6%
Single value
73.5%
Transcription
91.3%
Structured JSON
86.1%
Text localization
26.4%
OCR (high)–
78.7%
$0.039
by category
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
94.1%
Structured JSON
90.9%
Text localization
58.6%
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0038
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.023

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 77.6% (#10 of 63) for Claude Sonnet 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads with 72.8% against 66.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0045 per sample against $0.0073. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.83 per 1M input tokens and $4.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.