Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 3 to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 35
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 46. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 89.9% to 73.2%.
Claude Opus 4.8 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. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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.
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 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | Margin← 3.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 89.9%B 73.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 16.7CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 89.9%; Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1600 | 639 | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | 38.46% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | 6.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | 31.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.0% | 6.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1354 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 12.2% | Not comparable |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 58.3% | 24.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 41.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 0.00% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 25.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 82.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 16.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | -15.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 36.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 81.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 89.9% | 73.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.5% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 77.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 46. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 89.9% and 73.2%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.