Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Gemini 1.5 Flash

Compare
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
and
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
on reasoning, speed, cost, and features.
Models
COntext size
Cutoff date
I/O cost *
Max output
Latency
Speed
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
200000
2024-04
₳4.8/₳24
8192
150
120
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
1048576
2024-04
₳0.45/₳1.8
8192
250
120
*₳ = ₳nyTokens

Standard Benchmarks

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
88.7
78.9
87
94.1
74.3
74.3
MMLU
GSM8K
HumanEval

Claude Haiku 3.5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash represent two distinct approaches to fast AI inference. Claude Haiku 3.5 excels in reasoning tasks and maintains Anthropic's reputation for safety and nuanced understanding, making it ideal for applications requiring careful analysis and ethical considerations. The model demonstrates strong performance across coding, writing, and analytical tasks while maintaining relatively low costs. Gemini 1.5 Flash stands out with its massive 1 million token context window, enabling it to process entire codebases, lengthy documents, or complex conversations without losing context. This makes it particularly valuable for document analysis, code review, and applications requiring extensive memory. Both models offer competitive speed for real-time applications, though Gemini 1.5 Flash typically provides better cost efficiency for high-volume use cases. In terms of multimodal capabilities, Gemini 1.5 Flash supports vision, audio, and text inputs, while Claude Haiku 3.5 focuses primarily on text with some image understanding. For developers choosing between them, consider whether you prioritize reasoning quality and safety features or need extensive context handling and multimodal capabilities.

Compare in AnyChat Now

Intelligence Score

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
76
77

When to choose Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5

Choose Claude Haiku 3.5 for applications requiring strong reasoning, ethical AI responses, and nuanced text analysis. Ideal for customer support, content moderation, educational tools, and scenarios where response quality and safety are paramount over raw processing capacity.

When to choose Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash

Select Gemini 1.5 Flash for applications needing extensive context windows, multimodal processing, or high-volume operations. Perfect for document analysis, codebase reviews, research assistance, and applications requiring vision or audio input alongside text processing capabilities.

Speed & Latency

Real-world performance metrics measuring response time, throughput, and stability under load.

metric
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
Average latency
150
ms
250
ms
Tokens/Second
120
120
Response Stability
Very Good
Very Good
Verdict:
Both models offer comparable fast response times for real-time use

Cost Efficiency

Price per token for input and output, affecting total cost of ownership for different use cases.

Pricing
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
Input ₳nyTokens
₳4.8
₳0.45
Output ₳nyTokens
₳24
₳1.8
Verdict:
Gemini 1.5 Flash delivers better value for high-volume applications

Integration & API Ecosystem

Developer tooling, SDK availability, and integration capabilities for production deployments.

Feature
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 3.5
Google: Gemini 1.5 Flash
REST API
Official SDKs
Function Calling
Streaming Support
Multimodal Input
Open Weights
Verdict:
Gemini 1.5 Flash delivers better value for high-volume applications

Related Comparisons

GPT-4o vs Llama 3.3 70B

GPT-4o leads in multimodal capabilities; Llama 3.3 offers open-source flexibility

Gemini 1.5 Flash vs GPT-3.5 Turbo

Gemini 1.5 Flash offers multimodal capabilities; GPT-3.5 Turbo provides reliable text processing

Grok 4 vs Grok 3

Grok 4 delivers superior performance; Grok 3 offers proven reliability

FAQs

Which model is more accurate overall?

Claude Haiku 3.5 generally provides more accurate reasoning and nuanced responses, while Gemini 1.5 Flash excels in handling complex, context-heavy tasks with its superior memory capabilities.

How do the costs compare?

Gemini 1.5 Flash typically offers better cost efficiency for high-volume applications, while Claude Haiku 3.5 provides competitive pricing with a focus on quality over quantity.

Which model is faster?

Both models offer comparable fast response times suitable for real-time applications, with minimal practical differences in latency for most use cases.

Do both models support multimodal inputs?

Gemini 1.5 Flash supports comprehensive multimodal inputs including vision, audio, and text, while Claude Haiku 3.5 primarily focuses on text with limited image understanding capabilities.

Can I test both models in AnyAPI Playground?

Yes! Both models are available in the AnyApi Playground where you can run side-by-side comparisons with your own prompts.

Try it for free in AnyChat

Experience these powerful AI models in real-time.
Compare outputs, test performance, and find the perfect model for your needs.