Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (570ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 180 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 93.2% vs. 70.5% 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 2.5 Flash
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 13.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$2.50
Gemini 2.5 Flash (87.5% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.030
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 6.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.30
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 16.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
1,049k (66k out)
Gemini 2.5 Flash (1.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
110ms
Gemini 2.5 Flash (570ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
180 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+85 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
58%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+31.9% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
70.5%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+22.7% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
82%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+10.1% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
89%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+9.0% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
66.6 / 100
Gemini 2.5 Flash (+8.8 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 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30/1M input tokens ($2.50/1M 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 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 110ms TTFT (180 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 58% for Gemini 2.5 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 70.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash (and 98% vs 89% 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 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).
