Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 2.5 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.
The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jun 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $10.00 |
| 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 | ||
| 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 | 70.15% | 70.15% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | 11.87s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 61 | 565 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | $0.0060 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 78.9%(15/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | 78.6% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | 4.91s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 64 | 323 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | $0.0036 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 78.8%(78/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 73.3%(22/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | 75%(45/60) |
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