Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4 leads 61.2 to 51.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 81.6% for Claude Opus 4 and 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1322 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 47.1% |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1324 |
| DTBench | 81.6% | 52.5% |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | 57.1 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 50.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 54.3% |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | 37.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1309 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | 72% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | 50% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1305 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1100 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1323 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1339 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1347 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1306 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1301 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1325 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1328 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1313 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 91.8% | 82.4% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 78.3% |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1320 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1330 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1319 |
| WildBench | 85.2% | 79% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1307 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 34.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32.