ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 74 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Google

    Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Released Sep 2, 2026

    74/100
    • ECI157.6
    • Price$0.75 / $3.75
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 3.8 Flash
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 5.5

    Released Oct 7, 2026New

    83/100
    • ECI160.4
    • Price$0.10 / $0.50
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 5.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 5.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Gemini 3.8 Flash (74). It leads on capability and price. Gemini 3.8 Flash wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 · Gemini 3.8 Flash 157.6
  • Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · Gemini 3.8 Flash $1.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.8 FlashGemini 3.8 Flash 1,048,576 · Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.8 FlashGemini 3.8 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8689
Price25%4080
Inputs & features15%10080
Context window10%6160
Overall100%74/10083/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.8 FlashGoogleClaude Haiku 5.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)157.6160.4 (best)
ECI rank#23 of 165#14 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions95.4% (best)89.7%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics68.4%75.1% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9%98.9%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions69.7% (best)23.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.75$0.10 (best)
Output$3.75$0.50 (best)
Cached input$0.075$0.01 (best)
Blended (3:1)$1.50$0.20 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · highYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDgemini-3.8-flashclaude-haiku-5-5
API providers3233 (best)
ReleasedSep 2, 2026Oct 7, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 3.8 Flash$15.00
  • Claude Haiku 5.5$2.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 3.8 Flash or Claude Haiku 5.5?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Gemini 3.8 Flash (74). It leads on capability and price. Gemini 3.8 Flash wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Claude Haiku 5.5?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). Gemini 3.8 Flash costs $0.75 input / $3.75 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Claude Haiku 5.5 versus $1.50 for Gemini 3.8 Flash (7.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 (#14 of 165) and Gemini 3.8 Flash 157.6 (#23 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (157.3–163.8 vs 155.5–160.9), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.8 Flash 95.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Haiku 5.5 75.1%, Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 3.8 Flash 98.9%, Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%; SimpleQA Verified — Gemini 3.8 Flash 69.7%, Claude Haiku 5.5 23.8%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 3.8 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 5.5 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 3.8 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Haiku 5.5. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.8 Flash up to 65,536, Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.8 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 3.8 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Gemini 3.8 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the newest, released Oct 7, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash came out Sep 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 5.5 Jun 2026.

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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons