Which model is better: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 62.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (80ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 180 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 70.5% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.80
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 2.7x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$2.50
Gemini 2.5 Flash (37.5% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.080
$0.030
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 2.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$1.00
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 3.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (8k out)
1,049k (66k out)
Gemini 2.5 Flash (5.1x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
190ms
110ms
Gemini 2.5 Flash (80ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
130 tok/s
180 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+50 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
40.6%
58%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+17.4% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
41.6%
70.5%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+28.9% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
71%
82%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+11.0% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
69.4%
89%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+19.6% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
52.4 / 100
66.6 / 100
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+14.2 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30/1M input tokens ($2.50/1M output) compared to $0.80/1M input ($4.00/1M output) for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 110ms TTFT (180 tok/s throughput) compared to 190ms TTFT (130 tok/s) for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
How do Claude 3.5 Haiku and Gemini 2.5 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 40.6% versus 58% for Gemini 2.5 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 41.6% versus 70.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash (and 69.4% vs 89% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 3.5 Haiku?
Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku (Anthropic) for rapid customer-facing chat, sub-agent routing, and real-time code autocomplete — offering a 204k context window, 190ms TTFT, and $0.80/1M input pricing ($0.080/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) for cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 110ms TTFT, and $0.30/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).
