Skip to main content

Head-to-head comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs. Gemini 3.6 Flash

Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.

shared result series
26
distinct benchmarks
26
latest retrieval
2026-09-29

Change model selection

Specifications

General specifications

Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.

Specifications for Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.6 Flash
AttributeClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 Flash
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
ReleasedMay 2026Jul 21, 2026
AvailabilityLegacyActive
Model typeProprietaryProprietary
ParametersNot publishedNot published
ArchitectureNot publishedNot published
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Knowledge cutoffJanuary 2026March 2026
Technical sourcesModel, Knowledge cutoffModel, Knowledge cutoff

Pricing

API pricing compared

The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.

API pricing for Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.6 Flash
Price typeClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 Flash
API input$5$0.75
API output$25$3.75
Cache read$0.5$0.07
Cache write (5 min.)$6.25Not listed
Cache write (1 hr.)$10Not listed
Price verified09/22/2026 Source09/22/2026 Source
Claude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 Flash
API inputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.8$5
Gemini 3.6 FlashLower price$0.75
API outputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.8$25
Gemini 3.6 FlashLower price$3.75
Cache readUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.8$0.5
Gemini 3.6 FlashLower price$0.075

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Pricing by provider

Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.

No provider tariff for Claude Opus 4.8 is available in the stored OpenRouter snapshot. The official direct price is still shown.

Provider pricing for Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.6 Flash
ModelProviderPurchase route and tariffInput per 1M tokensOutput per 1M tokensSource
Claude Opus 4.8AnthropicDirect from developerStandard APILowest listed price: $5Lowest listed price: $25Source09/22/2026
Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogleDirect from developerStandard API$0.75$3.75Source09/22/2026
GoogleVia OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global$0.75$3.75Source10/05/2026
GoogleVia OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global/flexLowest listed price: $0.375Lowest listed price: $1.875Source10/05/2026
GoogleVia OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global/priority$1.35$6.75Source10/05/2026
GoogleVia OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/us$0.825$4.125Source10/05/2026
Google AI StudioVia OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio$0.75$3.75Source10/05/2026
Google AI StudioVia OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio/flexLowest listed price: $0.375Lowest listed price: $1.875Source10/05/2026
Google AI StudioVia OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio/priority$1.35$6.75Source10/05/2026

Performance

Shared benchmarks

Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.

Capability profile from matched benchmarks

Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.

255075100CodingReasoningKnowledgeFinanceLegalAgentic tasksMultimodalProductivity
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Coding: 100 / 60.1 (6 benchmark families)
Reasoning: 98.9 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Knowledge: 100 / 99.7 (1 benchmark family)
Finance: 99.3 / 93.6 (6 benchmark families)
Legal: 98.8 / 64 (3 benchmark families)
Agentic tasks: 97.5 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Multimodal: 98 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Productivity: 100 / 83 (1 benchmark family)

26 matched rows from 25 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 12 comparable categories.

Claude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 Flash
Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner47.25 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash30.928 %
CorpFin v2Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner66.706 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash63.326 %
EMBOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner69.373 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash65.411 %
Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.853.918 %
Gemini 3.6 FlashWinner56.296 %
GPQA DiamondOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.892.424 %
Gemini 3.6 FlashWinner93.434 %
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner9.583 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash3.333 %
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner43.75 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash25 %
LegalBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.883.568 %
Gemini 3.6 FlashWinner86.705 %
LiveCodeBench v6Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.887.819 %
Gemini 3.6 FlashWinner88.08 %
MedCodeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner53.217 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash53.153 %
MedScribeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner85.755 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash79.661 %
MMLU-ProOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.8Winner89.585 %
Gemini 3.6 Flash89.276 %

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Benchmark scores for Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.6 Flash
Benchmark and taskClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 FlashSource
Code MigrationOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner47.25 %
30.928 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
CorpFin v2Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner66.706 %
63.326 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 08/12/2026
EMBOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner69.373 %
65.411 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Finance Agent (v2)Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
53.918 %
Winner56.296 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
GPQA DiamondOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
92.424 %
Winner93.434 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: task resolution rateScoring: Higher is better
Winner9.583 %
3.333 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: all-pass rateScoring: Higher is better
Winner43.75 %
25 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
LegalBenchOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
83.568 %
Winner86.705 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
LiveCodeBench v6Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
87.819 %
Winner88.08 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
MedCodeOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner53.217 %
53.153 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/26/2026
MedScribeOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner85.755 %
79.661 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/26/2026
MMLU-ProOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner89.585 %
89.276 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
MMMU-ProOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
86.59 %
Winner88.382 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
MortgageTaxOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner69.912 %
67.608 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
ProgramBenchOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner1 %
0 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner68.133 %
56.563 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
SAGEOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner54.788 %
48.686 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/26/2026
SWE-bench VerifiedOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner88.6 %
79.6 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
Tax Agent BenchOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner64.906 %
49.895 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
TaxEval v2Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner75.634 %
74.857 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/01/2026
Terminal-Bench 2.1Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
71.91 %
Winner73.783 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 4.0Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner16.162 %
4.545 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Terminal-Bench ScienceOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 0.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
Winner10 %
1.429 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vals IndexOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: weighted index scoreScoring: Higher is better
Winner60.908 %
55.354 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vals Multimodal IndexOverall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.2Metric: weighted index scoreScoring: Higher is better
Winner70.889 %
65.077 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 08/11/2026
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Overall
Test details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Harness: OpenHands
Winner82.725 %
64.005 %
Vals AI
Source details
Data as of: 09/27/2026

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Our model tests

Our tests

Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the latest attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. Earlier runs remain available in the test details. These results do not contribute to an overall score.

Pelican on a bicycle

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8: Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt
Run date
1 Oct 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
anthropic/claude-opus-4.8
API model reported in response
anthropic/claude-opus-4.8
Reasoning setting
high
Pinned endpoint
Anthropic | anthropic/claude-4.8-opus-20260528
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Passed, not a quality rating
Response time
18 s

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

The response reached the token limit. No complete recording is available.

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt
Run date
2 Oct 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
google/gemini-3.6-flash
API model reported in response
google/gemini-3.6-flash
Reasoning setting
high
Pinned endpoint
Google AI Studio | google/gemini-3.6-flash-20260721
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Failed
Response time
41.4 s

Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.

Earlier attempts (2)
  • 1 Oct 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high
  • 7 Sept 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high
Prompt and test conditions

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens

Task origin (Simon Willison)

How to read this comparison

Winning one benchmark is not an overall verdict

Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.

The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.

Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.

More matchups

Related LLM comparisons

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.6 Flash with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.

View the complete LLM comparison