Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (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 Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 13 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 8 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 only
46
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
8
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.5 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 reasoning is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 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 Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 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-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 3.5 Flash-Lite
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 17.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4Margin→ 7.8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin→ 0.8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 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 3.5 Flash-Lite

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 66.3%B 74%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteΔ 7.7
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 66.3%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 74%. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 54%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 5.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.1%B 54.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 outputGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1MGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%54%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%74%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
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%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1140Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —26.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —634Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%54.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%40.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —54.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —49.3%Not comparable
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%62.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%0.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MRCRv2Source —72.2%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 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%36.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%83.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%17.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%6.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%30.3%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%33.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 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 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%79.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

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

Claude Opus 4.5 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 Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 64.4. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.4 versus 62.6. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified 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 21, 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.