Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 34 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 34 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 10 categories and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 95% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 0% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 41.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-07-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 39 |
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 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1440 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 41.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1453 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | 765.27 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 39% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | 29.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | 10% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | 10.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 60.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 53.5% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1441 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | 19% |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 83.5% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 145.13 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | 26% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 71.1% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 13% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1433 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1435 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1268 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1427 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1451 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1443 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1442 |
| LMArena German | — | 1454 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1427 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1407 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1420 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1435 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1420 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | 1559 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1445 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite share?
34 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39.