ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  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 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Gemini 3.8 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.8 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8986
Price25%8040
Inputs & features15%80100
Context window10%6061
Overall100%83/10074/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 5.5AnthropicGemini 3.8 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)160.4 (best)157.6
ECI rank#14 of 165 (best)#23 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions89.7%95.4% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics75.1% (best)68.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9%98.9%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions23.8%69.7% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.75
Output$0.50 (best)$3.75
Cached input$0.01 (best)$0.075
Blended (3:1)$0.20 (best)$1.50
Long-context rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output128,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoYes
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-haiku-5-5gemini-3.8-flash
API providers33 (best)32
ReleasedOct 7, 2026Sep 2, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJun 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.

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

Which should you choose?

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

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, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?

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 — Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash 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: Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000, Gemini 3.8 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

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

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash 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