Gemini 2.0 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Which is Better for Coding?

The recent release of Gemini 2.0 models is getting a lot of attention, with everyone comparing them to OpenAI and DeepSeek models for reasoning and language tasks. When it comes to coding though, I think Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Qwen 2.5 give really good results compared to others. With that in mind, I decided to test Gemini 2.0 vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 for coding. I’ll be using the Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental Model for this challenge. Let’s see which one wins!

Table of contents

• Gemini 2.0 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Performance Benchmarks
• Gemini 2.0 and Claude 3.5: Application Based Comparison
  • Task 1: Python – Code Autocompletion Showcase
  • Task 2: Safe Calculator (Code Generation Security)
  • Task 3: Dynamic Web Component – HTML/JavaScript
  • Task 4: Visual 3D Representation
  • Comparison table for Claude 3.5 vs. Gemini 2.0
• Key Architectural and Design Differences
• Conclusion
• Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.0 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Performance Benchmarks

The following table summarizes the available performance benchmarks for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Experimental) and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, based on the provided search results. Keep in mind that benchmarks represent a limited view of overall model capabilities.

Benchmark	Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental	Claude 3.5 Sonnet
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding)	Not available	89.3% 0-shot CoT
MMLU-Pro (More robust MMLU)	76.4%	78% 0-shot CoT
MMMU (Multimodal reasoning)	70.7%	71.4% 0-shot CoT
HumanEval (Code generation)	Not available	93.7% 0-shot
MATH (Mathematical problem-solving)	89.7%	78.3% 0-shot CoT
GPQA (PhD-level knowledge)	62.1% Diamond	Not available
Internal Agentic Coding Evaluation	N/A	64% (solved), Outperforming Claude 3 Opus (38%)

Key Observations

• Coding:Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrated a lead in coding proficiency (HumanEval). It can solve 64% of problems, outperforming Claude 3 Opus (38%).
• Coding (Agentic):In an internal agentic coding evaluation, Claude 3.5 Sonnet solved 64% of problems, outperforming Claude 3 Opus which solved 38%.
• Knowledge/Reasoning:Gemini 2.0 Flash (Experimental) shows a lead in mathematical problem-solving (MATH).
• Multimodal Understanding:The models perform similarly on multimodal reasoning (MMMU).

It’s important to consider the specific requirements of your application when choosing a model, as strengths vary across different tasks.

Gemini 2.0 and Claude 3.5: Application Based Comparison

Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental and Claude Sonnet 3.5 are two of the most advanced AI models, each excelling in different domains. While Gemini 2.0 is known for its strong multimodal capabilities and deep integration with Google services, Claude 3.5 shines in reasoning and long-context understanding. This comparison breaks down their real-world applications, strengths, and ideal use cases.

Task 1: Python – Code Autocompletion Showcase

Prompt: “Generate a Python script using Matplotlib and Seaborn to visualize benchmark results in a bar chart. Include labeled axes, a title, and color differentiation for clarity.”

Gemini 2.0 Response

Claude 3.5 Response

Response:

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Summary

Gemini 2.0 offers a more versatile autocompletion system, supporting multiple data formats, including text, code, and structured data. It provides more dynamic suggestions based on real-time context, making it ideal for complex coding tasks. On the other hand, Claude 3.5 focuses on providing precise and readable completions but may lack the depth of contextual awareness that Gemini 2.0 offers. While both models perform well, Gemini 2.0’s ability to handle a variety of data types gives it a significant edge in this category.

Verdict:

Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental ✅ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ❌

Task 2: Safe Calculator (Code Generation Security)

Prompt: “Write a Python function calledsafe_calculatorthat takes two numbers and an operator ( , -, *, /) as input. The function should perform the calculation, BUT it must also include robust error handling to prevent any potential security vulnerabilities (e.g., division by zero, code injection). Return the result or an appropriate error message. After both models generate the code, I will attempt to find weaknesses.”

Gemini 2.0 Response

Claude 3.5 Response

Response:

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Summary

Claude 3.5 excels in security-focused calculations by utilizing the Decimal module for precision, ensuring accurate numerical computations without floating-point errors. It also includes robust measures to prevent code injection, making it a safer choice for handling untrusted inputs. In contrast, Gemini 2.0 primarily relies on floating-point arithmetic and regex-based sanitization, which may be less reliable in preventing security vulnerabilities. Given its emphasis on structured outputs and enhanced security, Claude 3.5 is the superior option for this task.

Verdict:

Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental ❌ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ✅

Task 3: Dynamic Web Component – HTML/JavaScript

Prompt: “Generate HTML and CSS code to create a simple animation of a bouncing ball inside a spinning hexagon. Include basic gravity and friction effects to make the ball’s movement realistic. Provide clear comments in the code.”

Claude 3.5 Response

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Gemini 2.0 Response

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Summary

Gemini 2.0 demonstrates strong capabilities in building interactive web components, particularly in physics-based simulations. It optimizes collision detection and integrates smoothly with rendering engines to create realistic animations. However, this comes at a cost, as its approach can be computationally expensive. Claude 3.5, in contrast, follows a more performance-friendly methodology, focusing on efficiency over realism. While this makes it a better choice for lightweight applications, it lacks the advanced physics modeling that Gemini 2.0 provides.

Verdict

Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental ✅ | Claude Sonnet 3.5 ❌

Task 4: Visual 3D Representation

“Generate a 3D maze screensaver with a dynamically generated labyrinth using JavaScript. The maze should have walls, a floor, and a camera navigating through it. Use CSS for a 3D perspective effect and animations. Implement a maze generation algorithm, and allow the camera to move and turn while avoiding walls. Ensure the camera follows a path-finding approach for smooth navigation.”

Gemini 2.0 Response

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Claude 3.5 Response

You can find the complete code generated by the models,here.

Summary

When it comes to representing a 3D maze, Gemini 2.0 takes a structured rendering approach, ensuring smooth camera transitions and refined visual outputs. It is particularly effective in handling spatial navigation and rendering complex environments. Claude 3.5, however, places more emphasis on logical movement mechanics rather than visualization. While both models have their strengths, Gemini 2.0’s ability to generate well-structured and visually coherent 3D mazes makes it the better choice for this task.

Overall Verdict

Claude 3.5 is the better choice for tasks requiring precision, security, and efficient computation, making it ideal for handling sensitive code and calculations. On the other hand, Gemini 2.0 shines in versatility, advanced physics simulations, and structured implementations, making it more suitable for interactive and visually rich applications. Depending on the specific requirements, one may be a better fit than the other.

Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental ✅ | Claude 3.5 Sonnet ❌

Comparison table for Claude 3.5 vs. Gemini 2.0

Task	Gemini 2.0	Claude 3.5 Sonnet	Winner
Python – Code Autocompletion	Versatile, supports multiple data formats, better for real-world applications	Simpler, optimized for quick visualization with clear labeling	Gemini 2.0
Safe Calculator (Security & Code Generation)	Uses float, regex sanitization, and direct error messages; suitable for basic use	Uses Decimal for precision, prevents code injection, and returns structured results	Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Dynamic Web Component – HTML/JavaScript	Advanced physics realism, optimized collision detection, but computationally expensive	Simpler, performance-friendly approach, but less accurate collision handling	Gemini 2.0
Visual 3D Representation	Structured rendering approach, refined camera movement for realistic navigation	Focuses on logic and movement mechanics with stack-based DFS	Gemini 2.0

Key Architectural and Design Differences

Let us now look into the key architectural and design difference between the two models below:

Feature	Gemini 2.0	Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Core Design	Agentic AI Architecture enables the AI system to perform specific actions based on user goals.	Maximizes efficiency to perform complex tasks quickly and accurately. Trained on general computer skills and has coding capabilities.
Multimodal Support	Supports multimodal inputs and outputs, including text, images, and multilingual audio, as well as native tool use.	Does not support image, voice, video processing.
Tool Use	With Native Tool Use the AI system has new computer skill to help it operate and understand and enables the AI system to perform specific actions based on user goals.	Code translations with ease, making it particularly effective for updating legacy applications and migrating codebases. It operates at twice the speed of Claude 3 Opus.
Context Window	1M tokens.	200K tokens.
Performance on Benchmarks	Excels in reasoning tasks.	Especially strong in coding and tool use tasks. Better at math than Gemini. Better at solving bugs or adding functionality to an open source codebase, given a natural language description of the desired improvement.
Coding Battle	While Gemini 2.0 does perform well.	Claude 3.5 Sonnet consistently outperforms Gemini 2 in terms of speed, accuracy, and ability to follow instructions.

Conclusion

Both Gemini 2.0 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet are powerful AI models with their strengths and weaknesses. For coding-intensive tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet appears to be the preferred choice for some users, while Gemini 2.0 offers a broader range of capabilities, multimodal support, and competitive pricing. Ultimately, the best model depends on the specific use case, budget, and individual preferences.

Stay tuned to Analytics Vidhya Blog for more such awesome content!

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1:  Which Gemini 2.0 model is best for coding?

A: Gemini 2.0 Pro Experimental is designed for advanced coding tasks. The “1206” Beta version of Gemini 2.0 Pro may be a better choice than Gemini 2.0 Flash for coding

Q2: Is Gemini 2.0 better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet?

A: It depends on the task. Some users find Claude 3.5 Sonnet superior for coding, while Gemini 2.0 is a better all-rounder.

Q3: How can I access Gemini 2.0?

A: Gemini 2.0 models are available through the Gemini app, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.

Q4: What is Claude 3.5 Sonnet?

A: Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the latest model from Anthropic, designed to deliver superior performance and versatility, excelling in understanding nuanced instructions and context.

Q5: How can I access Claude 3.5 Sonnet?

A: Claude 3.5 Sonnet is now available for free on Claude.ai and the Claude iOS app, with higher rate limits for Claude Pro and Team plan subscribers. It is also available via the Anthropic API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud’s Vertex AI.

The above is the detailed content of Gemini 2.0 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Which is Better for Coding?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!