Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026noindex (thin pair)

Claude Opus 4 vs Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite benchmark

Name: Claude Opus 4 vs Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic) and Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (Google) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite wins on output price at $1.5/1M. Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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 Opus 4

First Claude 4 Opus generation. Baseline for opus 4 vs opus 5.

Elo 1,490$75/1M out

Google

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite). Preview until a second source matches.

$1.5/1M 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 Opus 4 (7)vsGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (3)

Claude Opus 4: 7W (70%)Overall: Claude Opus 4Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 3W (30%)

← Claude Opus 4Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite →

Claude Opus 4 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,490vs—

Coding Elo

1,502vs—

SWE-bench

72.5%vs—

LiveBench

66.8%vs—

GPQA Diamond

80.4%vs—

Claude Opus 4: 5WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 0W

Claude Opus 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

58 tok/svs—

Time to first token

390 msvs—

Claude Opus 4: 2WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 0W

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$1.5/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.25/1M

Context window

200kvs1M

Claude Opus 4: 0WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 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 AdvantageClaude Opus 4 4/6

Preference Elo

No shared data

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Price Efficiency

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

$73.50/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,490

EloHigh is better

—

Code Elo

High is better

1,502

Code EloHigh is better

—

LiveBench

High is better

66.8%

LiveBenchHigh is better

—

SWE-bench

High is better

72.5%

SWE-benchHigh is better

—

GPQA

High is better

80.4%

GPQAHigh is better

—

TTFT

Low is better

390 ms

TTFTLow is better

—

Speed

High is better

58 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

—

In $

Low is better

$15/1M

In $Low is better

$0.25/1M+5900%

Out $

Low is better

$75/1M

Out $Low is better

$1.5/1M+4900%

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 98% with Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

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$1,650.00 / mo

In: $525.00Out: $1125.00

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$31.25 / mo

In: $8.75Out: $22.50

Estimated Cost Delta

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is estimated to save $1,618.75/month ($19,425/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:Pick Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite when you are optimizing output cost.
2
Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:Pick Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Lower output list price ($1.5/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite	Lower output list price ($1.5/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4	Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

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-opus-4-vs-gemini-3-1-flash-lite/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4

Elo 1,490

LiveBench66.8%

SWE-bench72.5%

Speed58 tok/s

Output cost$75/1M

Google

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost$1.5/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite output tokens are $1.5/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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 Opus 4 and Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 4 matchups →|All Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite matchups →

Claude Opus 4 vs Claude 3 Opus (previous opus)Claude Opus 4 vs Claude Opus 4.5 (next opus)Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs Claude Opus 4 Gemini 3 Flash vs Claude Opus 4 Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Claude Opus 4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 vs Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4 (7)vsGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (3)

Claude Opus 4: 7W (70%)Overall: Claude Opus 4Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 3W (30%)

← Claude Opus 4Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite →

Claude Opus 4 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,490vs—

Coding Elo

1,502vs—

SWE-bench

72.5%vs—

LiveBench

66.8%vs—

GPQA Diamond

80.4%vs—

Claude Opus 4: 5WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 0W

Claude Opus 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

58 tok/svs—

Time to first token

390 msvs—

Claude Opus 4: 2WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 0W

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$1.5/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.25/1M

Context window

200kvs1M

Claude Opus 4: 0WGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: 3W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Lower output list price ($1.5/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite	Lower output list price ($1.5/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4	Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite output tokens are $1.5/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude Opus 4 or Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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 Opus 4 and Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.