Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Opus 4.1
Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Opus 4.1 65, Gemini 2.0 Flash 65). The right pick depends on what you value most.
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
65/100- ECI144.1
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Opus 4.1 65/100, Gemini 2.0 Flash 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 4.1 for raw capability and Gemini 2.0 Flash for long inputs. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityClaude Opus 4.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | Claude Opus 4.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 59 | 71 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 90 | 70 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 65/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | 144.1 (best) |
| ECI rank | #116 of 148 | #81 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 77.3% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 12.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 68.9% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 73.4% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $15.00 |
| Output | — | $75.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $30.00 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 14 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | — | 14 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Aug 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Mar 31, 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash or Claude Opus 4.1?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Opus 4.1 65/100, Gemini 2.0 Flash 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 4.1 for raw capability and Gemini 2.0 Flash for long inputs. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Claude Opus 4.1?
Claude Opus 4.1 is cheaper at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $30.00 per million tokens for Claude Opus 4.1 versus . Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (141.6–146.0 vs 124.3–136.7), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 4.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.1. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Gemini 2.0 Flash and Claude Opus 4.1 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic · ECI 133.5
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek · ECI 132.3
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs o3-proOpenAI · ECI 147.4
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle · ECI 145.3
