Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Gemini 2.0 Pro in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 46.1 to 21.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 87.4% for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 50.1 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.0 (#62), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 35.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1521 | — |
| SciCode | 46.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 63.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#26), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 9.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.9% | — |
| OSWorld | 72.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 23.6% | — |
| GBAEval | 48.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1221 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,204 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#40), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.25 | 135.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 60.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.5% | — |
| CritPt | 3.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 76.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 60.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 68% |
| LMCA | 46.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 65.1% |
Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.9 (#41), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 71% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 83.5% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.6 (#60), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | 65.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 18.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#61), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.6 (#39), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | — |
| LMArena French | 1465 | — |
| LMArena German | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1465 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.6 (#23), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 83.4% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#40), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.4 (#22), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Gemini 2.0 Pro?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Gemini 2.0 Pro better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.0 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.0 Pro share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14.