Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning)
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 24 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Sonnet 4.53 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 2 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
Agents and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Sonnet 4.5 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+41points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+37.1points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+31.8points ahead
Where Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning) pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 24 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 31.835.63.8+31.8
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 12.445.733.3+12.4
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 21.183.462.3+21.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 13.517.84.3+13.5
- CritPtClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 1.11.10+1.1
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 37.150.913.8+37.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 9.432.923.5+9.4
Following instructionsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- Multi-ChallengeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 18.955.336.4+18.9
- IFBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 17.157.340.2+17.1
Other results13 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 48.678.129.5+48.6
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 42.4-0.1-42.5+42.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 38.552.113.6+38.5
- AIME 2025Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 33.78753.3+33.7
- HMMT Feb. 2025Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 31.767.535.8+31.7
- AIR-Bench 2024Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 22.389.867.5+22.3
- HarmBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 19.89272.2+19.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 11.820.78.9+11.8
- bbqClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 6.998.992+6.9
- XSTestClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 3.796.492.7+3.7
- simple_safety_testsClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 2.310097.7+2.3
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 1.717.515.8+1.7
- anthropic_red_teamGemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning) by 1.298.299.3+1.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning)?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning) wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning) wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 24 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 13 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.