CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Live
LeaderboardModelsCompareStacksBest ofGuidesNewsMethod
…
CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Precision Benchmarks

Programmatic, dated AI model benchmarks, head-to-head comparisons, and Stack Engine presets.

Daily ingest · 06:00 UTC

Analytics & Benchmarks

  • AI Model Leaderboard
  • Head-to-Head Compare Hub
  • Models Directory
  • Stack Engine Presets
  • Frontier Models
  • Open Weights Catalog

Guides & Intent Lists

  • Best LLM Lists (2026)
  • Best Coding LLM
  • Best Cheap LLM
  • Fastest Low-Latency LLM
  • Claude vs GPT Benchmark
  • What is Elo?
  • Methodology Guides
  • News & Dispatches

Transparency & API

  • Evaluation Methodology
  • Benchmark Changelog
  • Public JSON API
  • llms.txt Specification
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sign In / Account

© 2026 CompareLLM. Public benchmark data aggregated from Arena Elo, LiveBench, SWE-bench & OpenRouter.

Every score has a dated snapshot.

  1. Home
  2. Comparisons
  3. Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking benchmark

This page compares Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic) and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (Google) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead by 108 points (1,598 vs 1,490; seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Claude Opus 4.8 resolves 78.4% versus 66.8% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking streams faster (115 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.

Quick answer

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is a dated snapshot, not a lab score. Claude Opus 4.8 leads preference Elo (1,598 vs 1,490). Claude Opus 4.8 leads SWE-bench coding. Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is the cheaper output token. Elo is crowd preference, not an exam. Pick the column that matches the job.
Share Analysis:
WhatsAppTelegramX / PostLinkedInReddit

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.8

Prior Opus generation still billed at $5/$25. Kept as a compare baseline against Opus 5.

Elo 1,598$25/1M 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 4.5vs Claude Opus 4.6vs Claude Sonnet 4.5vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4.8 (5)vsGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (5)
Claude Opus 4.8: 5W (50%)Overall: Even matchupGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 5W (50%)
← Claude Opus 4.8Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking →
Claude Opus 4.8 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo
1,598vs1,490
Coding Elo
1,604vs1,515
SWE-bench
78.4%vs66.8%
LiveBench
73.6%vs67%
GPQA Diamond
86.2%vs81%
Claude Opus 4.8: 5WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 0W
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed
66 tok/svs115 tok/s
Time to first token
330 msvs220 ms
Claude Opus 4.8: 0WGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking: 2W
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price
$25/1Mvs$0.4/1M
Input price
$5/1Mvs$0.1/1M
Context window
1Mvs1M
Claude Opus 4.8: 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 AdvantageEven 3–3
Preference Elo

Claude Opus 4.8

108 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

49 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

$24.60/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—
Elo
High is better
+7%1,598
EloHigh is better
1,490
Code Elo
High is better
+6%1,604
Code EloHigh is better
1,515
LiveBench
High is better
+10%73.6%
LiveBenchHigh is better
67%
SWE-bench
High is better
+17%78.4%
SWE-benchHigh is better
66.8%
GPQA
High is better
+6%86.2%
GPQAHigh is better
81%
TTFT
Low is better
330 ms
TTFTLow is better
220 ms+50%
Speed
High is better
66 tok/s
SpeedHigh is better
115 tok/s+74%
In $
Low is better
$5/1M
In $Low is better
$0.1/1M+4900%
Out $
Low is better
$25/1M
Out $Low is better
$0.4/1M+6150%
Context
High is better
1M
ContextHigh is better
1M+5%
Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

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

Save up to 98% 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 Opus 4.8$550.00 / mo
In: $175.00Out: $375.00
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 $540.50/month ($6,486/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

  • 1
    Claude Opus 4.8:Pick Claude Opus 4.8 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
  • 2
    Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking:Pick Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking when you are optimizing output cost.
  • 3
    Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking:Pick Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4.8

Higher SWE-bench (78.4%).

High-volume chatGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

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

Voice / low-latency UIGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Lower TTFT (220 ms).

Long-document RAGGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.8

Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.8).

Target WorkloadRecommended PickEvaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4.8Higher SWE-bench (78.4%).
High-volume chatGemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingLower output list price ($0.4/1M).
Voice / low-latency UIGemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingLower TTFT (220 ms).
Long-document RAGGemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingLarger window (1M).
Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.8Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.8).

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news
launchJun 20, 2026

Keep Opus 4.8 on the board: a baseline, not a flagship

Opus 4.8 still bills $5/$25. We keep it so Opus 5 vs 4.8 is a real generation delta, not marketing.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

Sign in to cast your verified vote, bookmark models, and participate in benchmark discussions.Sign In to Post

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-opus-4-8-vs-gemini-2-flash-thinking/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE
VS
Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.8

Elo 1,598
LiveBench73.6%
SWE-bench78.4%
Speed66 tok/s
Output cost$25/1M
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 Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,598). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?
Claude Opus 4.8 leads SWE-bench at 78.4% vs 66.8%. 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 $25/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking?
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking has the lower time-to-first-token (220 ms vs 330 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 1M.
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 Opus 4.8 and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Related news

  • launch · Jun 20, 2026

    Keep Opus 4.8 on the board: a baseline, not a flagship

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 4.8 matchups →|All Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking matchups →
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 4.6 (previous opus)Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5 (next opus)Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs Gemini 2.5 Flash (next gemini-flash)Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8Gemini 3.6 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8