Updated October 7, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.7 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.63 versus 66.32. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 60.9 to 59.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 62.1 to 58, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 62.1Supported · #18/122 | 58.0Supported · #28/122 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 7 public rows | Claude Haiku 5.5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 60.9Supported · #20/146 | 59.3Supported · #23/146 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Claude Haiku 5.5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 79.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 77.9Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 83.6#10/49 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 70.2Supported · #13/174 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 5.5
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5
claude-haiku-5-5
Anthropic Claude Haiku 5.5 model documentationGemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Haiku 5.5
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGemini 3.7 Flash
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingClaude Haiku 5.5
Gemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationClaude Haiku 5.5
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Haiku 5.5 model documentationGemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Gemini App - Spark, Gemini Enterprise App, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Google Antigravity
Google DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash model cardClaude Haiku 5.5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Claude Haiku 5.5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 5.5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 5.5
2026-10-07
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public point estimate, 67.63 versus 66.32. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 60.9 to 59.3, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 62.1 to 58, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00035 on Claude Haiku 5.5 and $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.0065 and $0.04875; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.009 and $0.0675. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Haiku 5.5 leads this result
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 7, 2026
