Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026noindex (thin pair)

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) benchmark

Name: Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic) and Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (Google) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) wins on output price at $3/1M. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the larger context window (200k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

2024 workhorse. Still a high-intent compare against GPT-4o.

Elo 1,280$15/1M out

Google

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (google/gemini-3.1-flash-image). Preview until a second source matches.

$3/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (7)vsGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (2)

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 7W (78%)Overall: Claude 3.5 SonnetGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 2W (22%)

← Claude 3.5 SonnetGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) →

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,280vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

49%vs—

LiveBench

52.1%vs—

GPQA Diamond

65%vs—

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 4WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 0W

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

80 tok/svs—

Time to first token

280 msvs—

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 2WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 0W

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$3/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.5/1M

Context window

200kvs131k

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 1WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageClaude 3.5 Sonnet 5/6

Preference Elo

No shared data

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Token Price Efficiency

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

$12.00/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,280

EloHigh is better

—

LiveBench

High is better

52.1%

LiveBenchHigh is better

—

SWE-bench

High is better

49%

SWE-benchHigh is better

—

GPQA

High is better

65%

GPQAHigh is better

—

TTFT

Low is better

280 ms

TTFTLow is better

—

Speed

High is better

80 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

—

In $

Low is better

$3.00 / 1M

In $Low is better

$0.50 / 1M+500%

Out $

Low is better

$15.00 / 1M

Out $Low is better

$3.00 / 1M+400%

Context

High is better

+53%200k

ContextHigh is better

131k

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 81% with Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude 3.5 Sonnet$330.00 / mo

In: $105Out: $225

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)$62.50 / mo

In: $17.5Out: $45

Estimated Cost Delta

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) is estimated to save $267.50/month ($3,210/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image):Pick Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) when you are optimizing output cost.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Lower output list price ($3/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGClaude 3.5 Sonnet

Larger window (200k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3.5 Sonnet

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)	Lower output list price ($3/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Larger window (200k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-3-5-sonnet-vs-gemini-3-1-flash-image/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Elo 1,280

LiveBench52.1%

SWE-bench49%

Speed80 tok/s

Output cost$15/1M

Google

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost$3/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) output tokens are $3/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Claude 3.5 Sonnet accepts 200k tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude 3.5 Sonnet matchups →|All Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) matchups →

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet (next sonnet)Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet Gemini 3 Pro vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet Gemini 3 Flash vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (7)vsGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (2)

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 7W (78%)Overall: Claude 3.5 SonnetGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 2W (22%)

← Claude 3.5 SonnetGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) →

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,280vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

49%vs—

LiveBench

52.1%vs—

GPQA Diamond

65%vs—

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 4WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 0W

Claude 3.5 Sonnet (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

80 tok/svs—

Time to first token

280 msvs—

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 2WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 0W

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$3/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.5/1M

Context window

200kvs131k

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 1WGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image): 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)

Lower output list price ($3/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGClaude 3.5 Sonnet

Larger window (200k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3.5 Sonnet

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)	Lower output list price ($3/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Larger window (200k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) output tokens are $3/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image)?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet accepts 200k tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image) Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.