# Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-gemini-2-5-flash-lite
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 10 categories and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 79.5 to 21.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 68.2% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 18.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 36.4 |
| Rank | 3 | 208 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $4 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#167)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1373 |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 35.2% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 325.9 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 27.8 (#89)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 36.9% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 21.5 (#196)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1377 |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 62.8% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 18.1% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 40.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 133.93 |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 35.5 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 48% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1373 |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.1 (#206)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1373 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 3.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 30.9% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.6 (#109)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1198 |
| VPCT | — | 30% |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.5 (#129)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1369 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1404 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1388 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1359 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1396 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.2 (#163)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1366 |
| IFEval | — | 81% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#257)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1373 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 47.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 57.0 (#130)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1379 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1366 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1367 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| WildBench | — | 81.8% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 46× 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 2.5 Flash-Lite?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33.