Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 98.9% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | — |
| Results tracked | 44 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1322 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 47.1% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1324 |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 52.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 50.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.1 |
| LiveBench | — | 54.3% |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1309 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.4% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.1% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1305 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1100 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1323 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1339 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1347 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1328 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1313 |
| LMArena German | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1301 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1325 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 78.3% |
| IFEval | — | 82.4% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1320 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1330 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1319 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1307 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 34.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32.