Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 98.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (53.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (602ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 265 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 93.2% vs. 68.4% 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 Opus 5.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.07
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 53.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$0.30
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (98.5% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.015
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 13.3x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.07
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 66.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
1,049k (33k out)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (1.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
78ms
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (602ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
265 tok/s
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (+170 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
55.4%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+34.5% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
68.4%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+24.8% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
80.1%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+12.0% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
90.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+7.8% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
81.5 / 100
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (+23.7 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.075/1M input tokens ($0.30/1M output) compared to $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers faster first-token latency at 78ms TTFT (265 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 68.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (and 98% vs 90.2% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Google) for high-frequency data pipelines, real-time routing, large-scale document tagging, and ultra-low-cost conversational assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 78ms TTFT, and $0.07/1M input pricing ($0.015/1M cached reads).
