LIVE
ANTHROPICOpus 4.7 benchmarks published2m ago
CLAUDEOK142ms
OPUS 4.7$15 / $75per Mtok
CHATGPTOK89ms
HACKERNEWSWhy has not AI improved design quality the way it improved dev speed?14m ago
MMLU-PROleader Opus 4.788.4
GEMINIDEGRADED312ms
MISTRALMistral Medium 3 released6m ago
GPT-4o$5 / $15per Mtok
ARXIVCompositional reasoning in LRMs22m ago
BEDROCKOK178ms
GEMINI 2.5$3.50 / $10.50per Mtok
THE VERGEFrontier Model Forum expansion announced38m ago
SWE-BENCHleader Claude Opus 4.772.1%
MISTRALOK104ms
ANTHROPICOpus 4.7 benchmarks published2m ago
CLAUDEOK142ms
OPUS 4.7$15 / $75per Mtok
CHATGPTOK89ms
HACKERNEWSWhy has not AI improved design quality the way it improved dev speed?14m ago
MMLU-PROleader Opus 4.788.4
GEMINIDEGRADED312ms
MISTRALMistral Medium 3 released6m ago
GPT-4o$5 / $15per Mtok
ARXIVCompositional reasoning in LRMs22m ago
BEDROCKOK178ms
GEMINI 2.5$3.50 / $10.50per Mtok
THE VERGEFrontier Model Forum expansion announced38m ago
SWE-BENCHleader Claude Opus 4.772.1%
MISTRALOK104ms

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash

When the workload is high-volume and the budget is tight, the choice usually comes down to Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash. Haiku scores higher on most benchmarks but costs ~8x more per token. Flash trades a few benchmark points for native multimodal input, a 1M context window, and dramatically lower cost. For most cost-sensitive production workloads, Flash wins; for quality-sensitive budget work, Haiku.

Head-to-Head Specs

SpecClaude Haiku 4.5Gemini 2.0 Flash
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Input Price$0.80/1M$0.10/1M
Output Price$4.00/1M$0.40/1M
Context Window200K1M
Released2025-062025-02
Capabilitiestext, vision, tool-use, codetext, vision, tool-use, code

Benchmark Scores

BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Gemini 2.0 FlashWinner
MMLU-Pro82.184.5Gemini
HumanEval86.387.6Gemini
GPQA Diamond52.454.8Gemini
MATH74.677.2Gemini
SWE-bench41.243.1Gemini

See the full benchmark leaderboard for all models.

Category Breakdown

General reasoning (MMLU-Pro)TieTie

Haiku 4.5 at 82.1 vs Flash at 84.5. Within noise on this benchmark.

Code generation (HumanEval)Gemini 2.0 Flash

Flash at 87.6 vs Haiku 4.5 at 86.3. Slight Flash edge.

SWE-benchGemini 2.0 Flash

Flash at 43.1 vs Haiku 4.5 at 41.2. Both are below the threshold for autonomous coding agents.

MathClaude Haiku 4.5

Haiku 4.5 at 74.6 vs Flash at 77.2. Flash slightly ahead.

PricingGemini 2.0 Flash

Flash at $0.10/$0.40 vs Haiku 4.5 at $0.80/$4. ~8-10x cheaper.

Context windowGemini 2.0 Flash

Flash has 1M tokens vs Haiku at 200K.

MultimodalGemini 2.0 Flash

Flash supports text, image, audio, video. Haiku is text and vision.

Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 when:

  • Better quality matters more than cost at the budget tier
  • Anthropic ecosystem (MCP, Claude Code, etc.) is already in your stack
  • Workloads where Anthropic's safety profile is preferred
  • Tool-use heavy applications
View Claude Haiku 4.5 details

Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash when:

  • High-volume traffic where cost dominates
  • Multimodal applications with audio or video
  • Long-context workloads at budget price
  • Workloads on Google Cloud / Vertex AI
View Gemini 2.0 Flash details

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash?

It depends on your use case. Claude Haiku 4.5 from Anthropic excels at better quality matters more than cost at the budget tier, while Gemini 2.0 Flash from Google is better for high-volume traffic where cost dominates. See the full comparison above for detailed benchmarks and pricing.

How much does Claude Haiku 4.5 cost compared to Gemini 2.0 Flash?

Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $0.80 input and $4.00 output per 1M tokens. Gemini 2.0 Flash costs $0.10 input and $0.40 output per 1M tokens.

What is the context window difference between Claude Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 2.0 Flash?

Claude Haiku 4.5 supports 200K tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash supports 1M tokens.

More Comparisons

Interactive Compare ToolAll ModelsFull Pricing Guide