Claude Sonnet 4 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 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 23 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 thinking20Claude Sonnet 42 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Sonnet 42 of 2 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked20Claude Sonnet 42 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10Claude Sonnet 41 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Sonnet 41 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 41 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 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+57.1points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+39points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+27.3points 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 23 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4 by 27.331.13.8+27.3
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4 by 6.74033.3+6.7
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4 by 15.477.762.3+15.4
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4 by 6.410.74.3+6.4
- CritPttie0.30tie
FactsClaude Sonnet 4
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4 by 57.170.913.8+57.1
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracytie22.723.5tie
Following instructionsClaude Sonnet 4
- Multi-ChallengeClaude Sonnet 4 by 20.757.136.4+20.7
- IFBenchClaude Sonnet 4 by 14.554.740.2+14.5
Other results12 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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4 by 42.70.2-42.5+42.7
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Sonnet 4 by 35.164.629.5+35.1
- HarmBenchClaude Sonnet 4 by 25.89872.2+25.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4 by 2437.613.6+24
- AIR-Bench 2024Claude Sonnet 4 by 20.888.367.5+20.8
- AIME 2025Claude Sonnet 4 by 17.270.553.3+17.2
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4 by 1018.98.9+10
- bbqClaude Sonnet 4 by 4.696.692+4.6
- XSTestClaude Sonnet 4 by 3.996.692.7+3.9
- simple_safety_testsClaude Sonnet 4 by 2.310097.7+2.3
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Sonnet 4 by 1.817.615.8+1.8
- anthropic_red_teamtie99.299.3tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4 or Gemini 2.0 Flash (Non-Reasoning)?
Claude Sonnet 4 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. 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 23 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 12 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.