Model comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 49.5 on the Noometry Index. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher in 1 category and Gemini 3.5 Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 62.8 to 35.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 23.8% for Claude Haiku 5.5 and 66.2% for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 49.5 | 54.2 |
| Released | 2026-10-07 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $1.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $9 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 54 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Claude Haiku 5.5: 49.2 (#50), Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1587 | 1499 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 79.3% |
| DeepSWE | — | 37.4% |
| SciCode | — | 53.1% |
| WeirdML | — | 62.6% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1492 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 911.02 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 27.5% |
| GBAEval | — | 6.7% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,396 |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 35.2 (#69), Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 65.7% | 92.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 30% | 32% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 72.1% |
| SimpleBench | — | 76.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 92.5% |
| CritPt | — | 13.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 50% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 25.4% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 4.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1488 |
| DTBench | — | 94.7% |
| LMCA | — | 47.1% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 58.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 154.46 |
| ForecastBench | — | 59 |
Math Claude Haiku 5.5 leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 73.6 (#18), Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 75.1% | 62.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46.3% | 26.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 95.6% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 76.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 31% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1504 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 39% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 14.6% |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 50.8 (#70), Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.6% | 92.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 23.8% | 66.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1495 |
Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Claude Haiku 5.5: 43.7 (#21), Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1310 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | 47.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | — | 1463 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1476 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1526 |
| LMArena French | — | 1490 |
| LMArena German | — | 1492 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1486 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1493 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1480 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1467 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Haiku 5.5: —, Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1482 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1470 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1087 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1481 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.2 to 49.5 on the Noometry Index. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (49.2 vs 49.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Haiku 5.5 has 9 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54.