Which model is better: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 87.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (8.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (90ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 130 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding evaluations at 51.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 63.6% 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 2.0 Flash
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.80
$0.10
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 8.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.40
Gemini 2.0 Flash (90.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.080
$0.025
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 3.2x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$1.00
$0.10
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 10.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (8k out)
1,073k (8k out)
Gemini 2.0 Flash (5.2x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
190ms
280ms
Claude 3.5 Haiku (90ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
130 tok/s
185 tok/s
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+55 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
40.6%
51.8%
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+11.2% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
41.6%
63.6%
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+22.0% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
71%
78.2%
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+7.2% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
69.4%
91.1%
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+21.7% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
52.4 / 100
77.7 / 100
Gemini 2.0 Flash (+25.3 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 2.0 Flash?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.10/1M input tokens ($0.40/1M 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 2.0 Flash?
Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster first-token latency at 190ms TTFT (130 tok/s throughput) compared to 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s) for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
How do Claude 3.5 Haiku and Gemini 2.0 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 40.6% versus 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 41.6% versus 63.6% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (and 69.4% vs 91.1% 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 2.0 Flash?
Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash (Google DeepMind) for legacy high-throughput multimodal pipelines migrating to Gemini 3.8 Flash — offering a 1,073k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.10/1M input pricing ($0.025/1M cached reads).
