ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Opus 4.6

Gemini 3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 69 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Released May 19, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI154.5
    • Price$1.50 / $9.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.5 Flash

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.6

    Released Feb 5, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI155.3
    • Price$5.00 / $25.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.6

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Claude Opus 4.6 (61). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4.6Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.6 155.3 · Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5
  • Lowest priceGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash $3.38 · Claude Opus 4.6 $10.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Claude Opus 4.6 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.5 FlashGemini 3.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Claude Opus 4.6: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.5 FlashClaude Opus 4.6
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8485
Price25%252
Inputs & features15%10080
Context window10%6160
Overall100%69/10061/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Opus 4.6 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashGoogleClaude Opus 4.6Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)154.5155.3 (best)
ECI rank#33 of 148#27 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions92.8% (best)90.5%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics62.8%66.0% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics95.6% (best)94.4%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues79.3% (best)78.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions66.2% (best)47.0%
Price per million tokens
Input$1.50 (best)$5.00
Output$9.00 (best)$25.00
Cached input$0.15 (best)$0.50
Blended (3:1)$3.38 (best)$10.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesminimal · low · medium · highYeslow · medium · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDgemini-3.5-flashclaude-opus-4-6
API providers3233 (best)
ReleasedMay 19, 2026Feb 5, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025May 31, 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 3.5 Flash$33.00
  • Claude Opus 4.6$100.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 3.5 Flash or Claude Opus 4.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Claude Opus 4.6 (61). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Claude Opus 4.6?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00 input / $25.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.38 per million tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash versus $10.00 for Claude Opus 4.6 (3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.6 155.3 (#27 of 148) and Gemini 3.5 Flash 154.5 (#33 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (153.4–157.3 vs 152.5–156.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.5 Flash 92.8%, Claude Opus 4.6 90.5%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Opus 4.6 66.0%, Gemini 3.5 Flash 62.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 3.5 Flash 95.6%, Claude Opus 4.6 94.4%; SWE-bench Verified — Gemini 3.5 Flash 79.3%, Claude Opus 4.6 78.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Gemini 3.5 Flash 66.2%, Claude Opus 4.6 47.0%.

Which is better for coding?

Gemini 3.5 Flash resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash 79.3% and Claude Opus 4.6 78.7%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Opus 4.6. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.5 Flash up to 65,536, Claude Opus 4.6 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Opus 4.6 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4.6 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the newest, released May 19, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 came out Feb 5, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash Jan 2025, Claude Opus 4.6 May 31, 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons