Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
13.4pts
← winning
50.83/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 6 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Opus 4.5 only
45
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
6
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 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 Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 16.7x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9Margin→ 3.3Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 68.5%B 73.2%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteΔ 4.7
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 outputGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/sGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 sClaude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1MGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%31.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%38.46%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —6.2%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —12.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —7.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —642Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%41.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource —0.00%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —34.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%65.3%Tie
CritPtSource 0.3%1.1%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%25.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%82.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%16.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-15.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%36.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%81.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%73.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%75.5%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%77.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 68.5% and 73.2%.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.2 versus 69.9. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 2026

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.