Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 20 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 3
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 20
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude 4.1 Opus makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 30.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | Δ | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 20.3 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 54% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 74% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 26.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 634 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 36.5% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 17.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 6.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 33.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude 4.1 Opus and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 54.2. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.