Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle DeepMind
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#26 of 4660.1 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 40.0–73.4#8 of 4682.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 54.7–88.0
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#29 of 44$0.194 per LiveBench case#26 of 44$0.160 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#30 of 3847.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 37.4–54.0#8 of 3860.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 46.7–63.4
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.75Google AI · Sep 2, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$10.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$3.75Google AI · Sep 2, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 2, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.8 Flash
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · statistical tie5.97100% of row best · score · Claude Sonnet 5 (High); 95% CI [4.35064977, 7.58850066]; sessions 30631; observations 3176952; rank 94.7199% of row best · score · Gemini 3.8 Flash (High); 95% CI [2.80246501, 6.61533867]; sessions 12534; observations 712246; rank 13
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,442.1596% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-5-high; 95% CI [1437.57467941, 1446.71829948]; votes 35301; rank 621,494.67100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.8-flash-high; 95% CI [1486.13928353, 1503.20869643]; votes 5076; rank 6
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader80.0199% of row best · percent · claude-sonnet-5-xhigh-effort · 19,428 output tokens / case80.85100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.8-flash-high · 42,786 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified86.51100% of row best · points · Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) · 71,003 output tokens / case77.8290% of row best · points · Gemini 3.8 Flash (high thinking) · 13,616 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie0 benchmark wins2 benchmark winsOverall lead

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost

Full ranking →
Efficiency FrontierLiveBench overall · output estimate
Upper-left is better
xAIZ.aiMiniMaxDeepSeekOpenAIQwenGoogle DeepMindMoonshot AIAnthropic
LiveBench quality versus score-adjusted output costEach dot is a reviewed major-model configuration and is colored by developer. Higher means a better LiveBench overall score. Farther left means lower estimated output cost after adjusting by the score. A dotted line connects the non-dominated frontier observations. When models are selected, their sourced families remain prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and an orange ring identifies each selected model.$0.0050$0.010$0.050$0.100$0.500$1.006873798489Grok Build 0.1GLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)GPT-5.6 Sol (max)GPT-6 Astra (max)Claude Fable 5.1Score-adjusted output cost per LiveBench case (log) →LiveBench overall →
The dotted frontier connects measured, non-dominated major-model observations. With a selection, sourced families stay prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and orange rings mark the selected model or models. Family lines connect models only when their sourced family and generation match. Cost is estimated from published output tokens and the lowest current USD output rate; it excludes input, caching, batch discounts, and provider-specific benchmark execution details.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.8 Flash
DeveloperAnthropicGoogle DeepMind
FamilyClaude 5Gemini 3
ModelClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.8 Flash
VersionClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.8 Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-06-302026-09-02
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video, Audio, Document
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,049K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, code_execution, computer_use, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

Claude Sonnet 5 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-sonnet-5

Gemini 3.8 Flash Capabilities

chatcode executioncomputer usegenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-3.8-flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash FAQs

Is Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

Claude Sonnet 5 is $2.00 and Gemini 3.8 Flash is $0.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Sonnet 5 is $10.00 and Gemini 3.8 Flash is $3.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

Gemini 3.8 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Sonnet 5 supports 1,000K and Gemini 3.8 Flash supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

Gemini 3.8 Flash leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Sonnet 5 is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash understand images?+

Claude Sonnet 5 is documented with image input; Gemini 3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Sonnet 5 supports 128K and Gemini 3.8 Flash supports 66K output tokens.

Do Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Sonnet 5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemini 3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

Claude Sonnet 5 has 3 sourced provider routes; Gemini 3.8 Flash has 2, so Claude Sonnet 5 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Sonnet 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback