Which model is better: Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (200ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 180 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 70.5% vs. 59.4% 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 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 10.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$2.50
Gemini 2.5 Flash (83.3% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.300
$0.030
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 10.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.75
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 12.5x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (8k out)
1,049k (66k out)
Gemini 2.5 Flash (5.1x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
310ms
110ms
Gemini 2.5 Flash (200ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
80 tok/s
180 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+100 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
49%
58%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+9.0% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
59.4%
70.5%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+11.1% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
78%
82%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+4.0% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
78.3%
89%
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+10.7% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
46.2 / 100
66.6 / 100
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+20.4 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 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30/1M input tokens ($2.50/1M output) compared to $3.00/1M input ($15.00/1M output) for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 110ms TTFT (180 tok/s throughput) compared to 310ms TTFT (80 tok/s) for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
How do Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Gemini 2.5 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores 49% versus 58% for Gemini 2.5 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores 59.4% versus 70.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash (and 78.3% vs 89% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet?
Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic) for legacy enterprise workflows, code review pipelines, and human-like content generation — offering a 204k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.300/1M 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).
