Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 93.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (16.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (575ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 210 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 93.2% vs. 79.2% 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 3.8 Flash
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.25
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 16.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$1.50
Gemini 3.8 Flash (92.5% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.025
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 8.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.25
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 20.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
1,049k (66k out)
Gemini 3.8 Flash (1.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
105ms
Gemini 3.8 Flash (575ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
210 tok/s
Gemini 3.8 Flash (+115 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
68.5%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+21.4% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
79.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+14.0% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
87.4%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+4.7% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
95.1%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+2.9% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
74 / 100
Gemini 3.8 Flash (+16.2 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).
Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash (Google) for high-throughput agentic workflows, real-time multimodal RAG, live search grounding, and production code generation at flash unit economics — offering a 1,048k context window, 105ms TTFT, and $0.25/1M input pricing ($0.025/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.25/1M input tokens ($1.50/1M 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 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 105ms TTFT (210 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 79.2% for Gemini 3.8 Flash (and 98% vs 95.1% 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 3.8 Flash?
Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash (Google) for high-throughput agentic workflows, real-time multimodal RAG, live search grounding, and production code generation at flash unit economics — offering a 1,048k context window, 105ms TTFT, and $0.25/1M input pricing ($0.025/1M cached reads).
