Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5
Side-by-side comparison of pricing, context window, modalities, licensing, and strengths — with practical guidance on which model fits which workload.
| Spec | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Claude Haiku 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 200K tokens |
| Input price (per 1M tokens) | $1.50 | $1.00 |
| Output price (per 1M tokens) | $9.00 | $5.00 |
| Example workload (10M in + 2M out) | $33.00 / month | $20.00 / month |
| Modalities | text, image, audio, video, code | text, image, code |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not disclosed | Feb 2025 |
| Release date | 2026 | Oct 2025 |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Strengths | Agentic coding, Speed, Long context, Value | Fastest Claude, Low cost, Coding, Sub-agents |
| Open weights | No | No |
Verdict
The fast-tier fight. Gemini 3.5 Flash is no longer just a budget model — it posts strong agentic-coding benchmark scores and handles video and audio input across a 1M-token context at $1.50/$9. Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper ($1/$5), extremely fast, and punches above its size on coding, but its context stops at 200K tokens and it takes text and images only. Flash is the more capable generalist; Haiku is the leaner, cheaper specialist for high-volume sub-tasks.
When to choose Gemini 3.5 Flash
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash for multimodal inputs, million-token context, and agentic coding on a mid-range budget.
When to choose Claude Haiku 4.5
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 for the lowest cost per request, fast sub-agent work, and high-volume classification or extraction.
Prices and specs reflect published provider information and change frequently — always confirm on the provider's pricing page before committing to a workload.
More comparisons & tools
About
This page compares Gemini 3.5 Flash (Google) and Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic) side by side across the specs that actually drive a model decision: API pricing per million tokens, context window size, supported modalities, licensing and open-weights status, knowledge cutoff, and headline strengths. A worked example projects the monthly cost of a typical workload (10M input + 2M output tokens) on each model, and an editorial verdict summarises when to choose which. Spec data comes from the same registry that powers our full model comparison table, so figures stay consistent across the site.
How to use
- 1 Scan the spec table for the head-to-head numbers — pricing, context window, modalities, license, and strengths for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Haiku 4.5.
- 2 Check the example-workload row to see what a realistic monthly volume costs on each model.
- 3 Read the verdict and the two "when to choose" cards to map each model to your use case.
- 4 Use the FAQ for quick answers on price, context window, and self-hosting.
- 5 Estimate your own numbers with the AI cost calculator and token counter linked at the bottom, or jump to a related comparison.
- Which is cheaper: Gemini 3.5 Flash or Claude Haiku 4.5?
- Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper per token: $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 / $9.00 for Gemini 3.5 Flash. Actual costs depend on your input-to-output ratio — try the AI cost calculator for your own numbers.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Gemini 3.5 Flash supports 1M tokens versus 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5 — roughly 5.2× more room for documents, code, and conversation history.
- Can I self-host either model?
- No — both models are proprietary and available only through their providers' APIs or cloud platforms.
- How should I test which model is better for my use case?
- Benchmarks are a starting point, not an answer. Run both models on 20–50 examples of your real task and compare outputs blind. Use our token counter to estimate prompt sizes and the cost calculator to project monthly spend before committing.
More in AI Tools
See all ai tools.