ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

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

  1. 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
  2. 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

  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 FlashClaude Opus 4.6: Text, Images, PDFs · Gemini 3.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.6Gemini 3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8584
Price25%225
Inputs & features15%80100
Context window10%6061
Overall100%61/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.6AnthropicGemini 3.5 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)155.3 (best)154.5
ECI rank#27 of 148 (best)#33 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions90.5%92.8% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics66.0% (best)62.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics94.4%95.6% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues78.7%79.3% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions47.0%66.2% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$5.00$1.50 (best)
Output$25.00$9.00 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.15 (best)
Blended (3:1)$10.00$3.38 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output128,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoYes
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · maxYesminimal · low · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-opus-4-6gemini-3.5-flash
API providers33 (best)32
ReleasedFeb 5, 2026May 19, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 31, 2025Jan 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.

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

Which should you choose?

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

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, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

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: Claude Opus 4.6 up to 128,000, Gemini 3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

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

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.5 Flash 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: Claude Opus 4.6 May 31, 2025, Gemini 3.5 Flash Jan 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