Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
57
Gemini 3.5 Flash
88
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 unranked · Gemini 3.5 Flash #7
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+18.8 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$1 / $5
$1.5 / $9
N/A
284.2 t/s
N/A
18.55s
200K
1M
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 88 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. Gemini 3.5 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 57.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 54.5. Gemini 3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.