Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Anthropic • text+image+file->text
Context Window200K
Knowledge CutoffOct 22, 2024
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 1.5 Flash
Claude 3.5 Sonnet for coding and instruction quality, Gemini 1.5 Flash for 1M context at budget price.
Open model page
Gemini 1.5 Flash
Unknown • Unknown
Context WindowUnknown
Knowledge CutoffUnknown
Editorial Verdict
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the capable efficient model; Gemini 1.5 Flash is the long-context budget option.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 1.5 Flash are both efficient models, but Claude 3.5 Sonnet is significantly more capable while Gemini 1.5 Flash has a massive 1M token context window. For general reasoning and coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet wins. For massive-scale document processing, Gemini 1.5 Flash wins.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Significantly higher reasoning and coding benchmark scores
- Better instruction following for precise task completion
- Extended thinking mode for complex reasoning on demand
Best for: General-purpose efficient applications requiring strong reasoning and coding
Gemini 1.5 Flash
- 1M token context for processing entire document collections
- Lowest cost per token among capable models
- Fast inference optimized for high-volume applications
Best for: Massive-scale document processing and cost-critical high-volume applications
Pricing sourced from OpenRouter — updates as their catalog changes.
Pricing Comparison
All values pull from OpenRouter and update as their catalog changes.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Gemini 1.5 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $6.00 | Custom | 🏆 Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $30.00 | Custom | 🏆 Claude 3.5 Sonnet |
| Request fee | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Image fee | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Cost Estimator
Estimate monthly billing using real OpenRouter prices.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet Total
$660Gemini 1.5 Flash Total
VariableSavings unavailable (pricing not published for one model).
Capability Signals
Scores are directional estimates from model metadata — not official benchmark results.
Claude 3.5 SonnetMMLU Signal (Reasoning)Gemini 1.5 Flash
69%
N/A
Claude 3.5 SonnetHumanEval Signal (Coding)Gemini 1.5 Flash
76%
N/A
Claude 3.5 SonnetAgentic Tooling SignalGemini 1.5 Flash
84%
N/A
Claude 3.5 SonnetMultimodal SignalGemini 1.5 Flash
78%
N/A
Capabilities Matrix
Feature highlights for architecture and production fit.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet Strengths
- Supports image inputs for multimodal analysis workflows.
- Strong tool-calling and structured response support.
- Large context window for long documents and codebases.
Gemini 1.5 Flash Strengths
- Live capability metadata is currently unavailable for this model.
- Re-check after the next OpenRouter catalog refresh.
- Use provider docs for exact benchmark claims.
API Implementation
Quick start snippets for each provider style.
Anthropic (Python)
import anthropic
client = anthropic.Anthropic()
message = client.messages.create(
model="anthropic/claude-3.5-sonnet",
max_tokens=1024,
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}]
)
print(message.content)Unknown (Python)
# Model metadata unavailable # See provider docs for API usage.
Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet when...
- Your application includes visual reasoning and image understanding tasks.
- You process large documents or code repositories in a single prompt.
- You rely on function calling, tool chaining, and structured output contracts.
Choose Gemini 1.5 Flash when...
- Use Gemini 1.5 Flash when this provider is required by policy constraints.
- Validate performance with your own evaluation set before production rollout.
- Confirm final cost in the provider dashboard for your deployment region.
Frequently Asked Questions
Practical checks before selecting a production model.
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet better than Gemini 1.5 Flash?
It depends on the workload. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 1.5 Flash differ in pricing, context window, and capability mix — see the side-by-side table above for the breakdown.
What's the price difference between Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 1.5 Flash?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: $6.00 per 1M input tokens. Gemini 1.5 Flash: N/A per 1M input tokens. Output token pricing typically runs 2-5x higher.
Which model is better for coding?
Coding preference depends on your stack and tool-calling needs. Compare the coding signal row, test with your repository tasks, and validate latency in your target region.
Which model is cheaper at scale?
Input and output token pricing can diverge by workload profile. Use the estimator with your monthly request count and token mix to get a realistic cost difference.
Are these official benchmark numbers?
Pricing is live from OpenRouter. Benchmark rows are ModelsAtlas metadata-based signals and should be treated as directional guidance, not official leaderboard scores.
Related Comparisons
Explore adjacent model matchups.