Why is this comparison indexable?

It has 6 verifiable comparison points, and both models have pricing or benchmark data.

Are missing metrics invented?

No. Metrics without LMSpeed data are omitted from this report.

Back to models

Data points: 130

Model compare

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

The readout for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, before the detailed comparison sheet.

Model A

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Anthropic

Contender

Model B

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google

Leading

Key Takeaways

Weighted outcome: Gemini 3.1 Pro. Benchmark capability categories carry 80%, while price, API performance, and availability carry 20%.

Decision read

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher weighted result; Model A / B score 38.9 to 61.1.

Evidence depth

130 data points

Includes 33 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 10 provider examples.

Selection signal

Start with Gemini 3.1 Pro

The charts below split 43 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.

Change comparison

Switch either side of this report to compare another model with the same LMSpeed data pipeline.

Model AModel B

Comparison sheet

This report only uses LMSpeed data for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.

Model compare	Claude Sonnet 4.6	Gemini 3.1 Pro
Overall leader	Contender	Leading
Weighted overall score	38.9 pts	61.1 pts
Benchmark category leads	2 categories	5 categories
Operational advantages	Cheapest input price, First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage	Average speed
Context window	1M tokens	1.0M tokens
Max output	128K tokens	65.5K tokens
Modalities	Input TextImageFile Output Text	Input AudioFileImageTextvideo Output Text
Features	Text inputImage inputFile inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning	Text inputImage inputFile inputAudio inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning

The overall result weights benchmark capability categories at 80% and price, API speed/latency, and availability at 20%. Recent test volume does not affect the winner, and missing benchmark categories are excluded.

Model metadata

Model compare	Claude Sonnet 4.6	Gemini 3.1 Pro
Developer	Anthropic	Google
Released	Feb 2026	Feb 2026
Parameters	No data	No data
Tokenizer	Claude	Gemini
Knowledge cutoff	No data	No data
OpenRouter ID	anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6	google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
References	No data	No data

When to choose each model

This report only uses LMSpeed data for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is stronger in benchmark categories (Agents, Knowledge) and operational dimensions (Cheapest input price, First-token latency, Free providers, Provider coverage).

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Gemini 3.1 Pro is stronger in benchmark categories (Coding, Reasoning, Math, Multimodal, Instruction following) and operational dimensions (Average speed).

Benchmark score comparison

Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.

Category performance

Compare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.

Model A coverage: 7 / 8
Model B coverage: 8 / 8
Shared: 7 shared categories

Avg. score

Claude Sonnet 4.6

52.9

Avg. score

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Agents

Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by 1.7

Claude Sonnet 4.651.9

Gemini 3.1 Pro50.2

Coding

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads by 1.2

Claude Sonnet 4.656

Gemini 3.1 Pro57.2

Reasoning

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads by 7.3

Claude Sonnet 4.650.1

Gemini 3.1 Pro57.4

Knowledge

Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by 13.6

Claude Sonnet 4.670.6

Gemini 3.1 Pro57

Math

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads by 2.0

Claude Sonnet 4.652.6

Gemini 3.1 Pro54.6

Multilingual

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Claude Sonnet 4.6-

Gemini 3.1 Pro69.3

Multimodal

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads by 9.7

Claude Sonnet 4.645.4

Gemini 3.1 Pro55.1

Instruction following

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads by 11.5

Claude Sonnet 4.643.8

Gemini 3.1 Pro55.3

Professional benchmark details

Metric-level scores with benchmark source, rank depth, confidence, error, and evaluation date where available.

Group

Aggregatereported

Provider	Claude Sonnet 4.6	Gemini 3.1 Pro
UoCode25 tests	Claude Sonnet 4.6 speed / latency 32 tok/s / 6074ms input / output No data	Gemini 3.1 Pro speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data
天宫造物25 tests	Claude Sonnet 4.6 speed / latency 40 tok/s / 3145ms input / output No data	Gemini 3.1 Pro speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data
小水管 API20 tests	Claude Sonnet 4.6 speed / latency 31 tok/s / 4124ms input / output No data	Gemini 3.1 Pro speed / latency 101 tok/s / 15025ms input / output No data
Tokeness.io15 tests	Claude Sonnet 4.6 speed / latency 48 tok/s / 1587ms input / output No data	Gemini 3.1 Pro speed / latency 98 tok/s / 12325ms input / output No data
CatClaw API10 tests	Claude Sonnet 4.6 speed / latency N/A / N/A input / output No data	Gemini 3.1 Pro speed / latency 121 tok/s / 11404ms input / output No data
兔子API	Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-sonnet-4-6 speed / latency No data input / output $0/request	Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high speed / latency No data input / output $0/request
小老鼠的奶酪工坊-酒馆聊天api	Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-sonnet-4-6 speed / latency No data input / output $0.010/M/$0.050/M	Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-3.1-pro-preview speed / latency No data input / output $0.0050/request
KFCV50	Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-sonnet-4-6 speed / latency No data input / output $0.010/request	Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-3.1-pro-preview speed / latency No data input / output $0.0052/request
PoloAPI	Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-sonnet-4-6-c speed / latency No data input / output $0.027/request	Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-3.1-pro-preview-c speed / latency No data input / output $0.0055/request
素墨API	Claude Sonnet 4.6 anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6 speed / latency No data input / output $0.010/request	Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-3.1-pro-high speed / latency No data input / output $0.100/request

Comparison sheet

Model metadata

When to choose each model

Benchmark score comparison

Category performance

Agents

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Professional benchmark details

BenchLM overall score

AA-LCR

CritPt

BenchLM Reasoning score

EEBench

React Native Evals

AA-SciCode

LiveCodeBench (Vals)

BenchLM Coding score

CADGenBench Generation

Vibe Code Bench

SWE-bench (Vals)

FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

BenchLM Math score

GPQA Diamond (Vals)

MMLU-Pro (Vals)

AA-GPQA Diamond

AA-Omniscience Accuracy

AA-HLE

BenchLM Knowledge score

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index

AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate

AA-MMMU-Pro

BenchLM Multimodal Grounded score

Design Arena Website

CharXiv

AA-IFBench

Claw-Eval

Gert Labs

Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

τ²-bench results

BenchLM Agentic score

API audit comparison

Provider examples

FAQ

Related compare reports