Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.5% to 36.1%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#18 of 25) against 69.6% (#14 of 25) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0064 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 4.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.300
Output $/1M$10.00$2.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.4%
69.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0064$0.0014
Avg speed / sample4.84s2.70s
By task
Object Detection
36.1%
$0.011
57.5%
$0.0023
Counting
56.8%
$0.0030
52.7%
$0.0007
Identification
81.3%
$0.0027
81.3%
$0.0004
OCR
91.7%
$0.0078
87.4%
$0.0011
Data Extraction
89.7%
$0.0030
90.7%
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
48.3%
$0.0012
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
68.9%
$0.0042

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5

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 3.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.

On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 66.4% (#18 of 25) for Claude Sonnet 5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 57.5% against 36.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 4.8s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.