Model A

Anthropic

60.25/100

Supported · Public rank #74

90% interval 50.9–69.6

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Google

60.5/100

Supported · Public rank #72

90% interval 49.0–72.0

Decision reading

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 60.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

Which one for your work

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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 4.5
Claude Opus 4.5 leads on the public coding lane, 55.1 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

42 Claude Opus 4.5 only

3 Shared

7 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only

Shared results: 3
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 42
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only: 7
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.

Coding

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.1; Supported · #42/183
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.6; Supported · #121/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 4 public rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.5 leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 44.5; Estimated · #101/151
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.4; Estimated · #104/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 15 vs 3 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4; Estimated · #60/181
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 53.0; Supported · #71/181
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 23.4; #46/48
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 76.1; #16/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 72.1; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 60.8; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 58.3; #6/7
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 82.9; #2/12
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 39.5; #103/120
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Category	Claude Opus 4.5	Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite	Basis	Reading
Coding	55.1Supported · #42/183	43.6Supported · #121/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 4 public rows	Claude Opus 4.5 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic	44.5Estimated · #101/151	43.4Estimated · #104/151	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 15 vs 3 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	55.4Estimated · #60/181	53.0Supported · #71/181	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	23.4#46/48	76.1#16/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	72.1Unranked · 4 rankable rows	60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	58.3#6/7	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	82.9#2/12	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	39.5#103/120	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 66.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 74%Normalized gap 7.7Claude Opus 4.5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 59.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54%Normalized gap 5.3Claude Opus 4.5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.5: 57.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54.2%Normalized gap 2.9Claude Opus 4.5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source

What each workload costs

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.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.0175; Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.00155; Fits in one request

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.325; Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.0225; Fits in one request

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $1.35; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.037; Fits in one request

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Google latest Gemini model guide

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

gemini-3.5-flash-lite

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

text, image, video, audio, pdf

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

text

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentation

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio

Google latest Gemini model guide

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

2026-07-21

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 60.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0225. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.037.
Context tradeoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads this result
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
Claude Opus 4.574%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.558%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the higher public score estimate, 60.5 versus 60.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Opus 4.5 leads the public coding lane, 55.1 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.5 to 43.4. Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.5 and $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0225; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.037. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Which one for your work

Coding work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Repository review cost

Agentic work

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Agentic

Knowledge

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite