Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 1, 2026

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking benchmark

Name: Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude 3.5 Haiku (Anthropic) and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (Google) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 1, 2026. On preference Elo, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is ahead by 266 points (1,490 vs 1,224; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking resolves 66.8% versus 36.2% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Claude 3.5 Haiku streams faster (140 tok/s) while Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is the cheaper output token ($0.4/1M). Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Previous cheap Claude. Haiku 4.5 is the current $1/$5 SKU.

Elo 1,224$4/1M out

Google

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Google experimental reasoning model that visualizes thoughts in real-time.

Elo 1,490$0.4/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2)vsGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (8)

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2W (20%)Overall: Gemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 8W (80%)

← Claude 3.5 HaikuGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking →

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,224vs1,490

Coding Elo

—vs1,515

SWE-bench

36.2%vs66.8%

LiveBench

44.8%vs67%

GPQA Diamond

54.1%vs81%

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 5W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

140 tok/svs115 tok/s

Time to first token

110 msvs220 ms

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 0W

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$4/1Mvs$0.4/1M

Input price

$0.8/1Mvs$0.1/1M

Context window

200kvs1M

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 3W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 5/6

Preference Elo

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

266 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Claude 3.5 Haiku

25 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

$3.60/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,224

EloHigh is better

1,490+22%

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,515

LiveBench

High is better

44.8%

LiveBenchHigh is better

67%+50%

SWE-bench

High is better

36.2%

SWE-benchHigh is better

66.8%+85%

GPQA

High is better

54.1%

GPQAHigh is better

81%+50%

TTFT

Low is better

+100%110 ms

TTFTLow is better

220 ms

Speed

High is better

+22%140 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

115 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$0.8/1M

In $Low is better

$0.1/1M+700%

Out $

Low is better

$4/1M

Out $Low is better

$0.4/1M+900%

Context

High is better

200k

ContextHigh is better

1M+424%

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 89% with Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude 3.5 Haiku$88.00 / mo

In: $28.00Out: $60.00

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking$9.50 / mo

In: $3.50Out: $6.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is estimated to save $78.50/month ($942/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking:Pick Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Claude 3.5 Haiku:Pick Claude 3.5 Haiku when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking:Pick Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Higher SWE-bench (66.8%).

High-volume chatGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Lower output list price ($0.4/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower TTFT (110 ms).

Long-document RAGGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Higher SWE-bench (66.8%).
High-volume chat	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Lower output list price ($0.4/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower TTFT (110 ms).
Long-document RAG	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking).

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-3-5-haiku-vs-gemini-2-flash-thinking/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Elo 1,224

LiveBench44.8%

SWE-bench36.2%

Speed140 tok/s

Output cost$4/1M

Google

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Elo 1,490

LiveBench67%

SWE-bench66.8%

Speed115 tok/s

Output cost$0.4/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?: Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,490). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?: Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking leads SWE-bench at 66.8% vs 36.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking output tokens are $0.4/1M versus $4/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?: Claude 3.5 Haiku has the lower time-to-first-token (110 ms vs 220 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking accepts 1M tokens versus 200k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Haiku and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude 3.5 Haiku matchups →|All Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking matchups →

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Claude Haiku 4.5 (next haiku)Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs Gemini 2.5 Flash (next gemini-flash)Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2)vsGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (8)

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2W (20%)Overall: Gemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 8W (80%)

← Claude 3.5 HaikuGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking →

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,224vs1,490

Coding Elo

—vs1,515

SWE-bench

36.2%vs66.8%

LiveBench

44.8%vs67%

GPQA Diamond

54.1%vs81%

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 5W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

140 tok/svs115 tok/s

Time to first token

110 msvs220 ms

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 0W

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$4/1Mvs$0.4/1M

Input price

$0.8/1Mvs$0.1/1M

Context window

200kvs1M

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 3W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Higher SWE-bench (66.8%).

High-volume chatGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Lower output list price ($0.4/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower TTFT (110 ms).

Long-document RAGGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking).

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Higher SWE-bench (66.8%).
High-volume chat	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Lower output list price ($0.4/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower TTFT (110 ms).
Long-document RAG	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking	Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking).

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,490). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking leads SWE-bench at 66.8% vs 36.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking output tokens are $0.4/1M versus $4/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?

Claude 3.5 Haiku has the lower time-to-first-token (110 ms vs 220 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking accepts 1M tokens versus 200k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Haiku and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.