Claude Opus 5.5vsGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $4.00 | $0.25 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $20.00 | $1.50 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.20 | $0.025 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.125Google AI Studio |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.75Google AI Studio |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 11% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitAgentic coding — A set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 54.4% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 66.4% | — |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 58.7% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 67.7% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 81.8% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 40% | — |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1846 | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | 89% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 2148 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 22 2026 | Mar 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 5.5vsGPT-6 SolGemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsGPT-6 SolClaude Opus 5.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Opus 5.5vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 5.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Opus 5.5vsKimi K3Gemini 3.1 Flash-LitevsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is cheaper on both input and output: $0.25 vs $4.00 per million input tokens, and $1.50 vs $20.00 per million output tokens. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite shipped 203 days before Claude Opus 5.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.