Which model is better: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (75ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 155 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 71.2% 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
Gemma 4 31B IT
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.80
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 6.7x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.36
Gemma 4 31B IT (91.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.080
$0.030
Gemma 4 31B IT is 2.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$1.00
$0.12
Gemma 4 31B IT is 8.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (8k out)
131k (16k out)
Claude 3.5 Haiku (1.6x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
190ms
115ms
Gemma 4 31B IT (75ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
130 tok/s
155 tok/s
Gemma 4 31B IT (+25 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
40.6%
59.2%
Gemma 4 31B IT (+18.6% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
41.6%
71.2%
Gemma 4 31B IT (+29.6% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
71%
82.8%
Gemma 4 31B IT (+11.8% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
69.4%
91.5%
Gemma 4 31B IT (+22.1% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
52.4 / 100
80.3 / 100
Gemma 4 31B IT (+27.9 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 Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.36/1M 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 Gemma 4 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT delivers faster first-token latency at 115ms TTFT (155 tok/s throughput) compared to 190ms TTFT (130 tok/s) for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
How do Claude 3.5 Haiku and Gemma 4 31B IT compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 40.6% versus 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 41.6% versus 71.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT (and 69.4% vs 91.5% 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 Gemma 4 31B IT?
Choose Gemma 4 31B IT (Google) for self-hosted VPC inference, fine-tuned domain agents, sovereign healthcare/finance workloads, and low-latency local code generation — offering a 131k context window, 115ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).
