Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#18 of 4670.1 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#42 of 44$0.604 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#35 of 3840.5 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$5.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.30Google AI · Aug 29, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$25.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$2.50Google AI · Aug 29, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 29, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,452.66100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-8; 95% CI [1448.52490690, 1456.79817098]; votes 53446; rank 401,417.2798% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1414.83704531, 1419.70406968]; votes 122732; rank 116
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,288.23100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-8; 95% CI [1281.27991800, 1295.18871241]; votes 15801; rank 251,235.9896% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1231.30819372, 1240.64679816]; votes 58893; rank 64
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified87.91100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 4.8 (max effort) · 24,846 output tokens / case72.1782% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Flash · 4,399 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above2 benchmark winsNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 2.5 Flash
DeveloperAnthropicGoogle DeepMind
FamilyClaude 4 8Gemini 2 5
ModelClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 2.5 Flash
VersionClaude Opus 4.8Gemini 2.5 Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-05-28Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2026-01-012025-01-01
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video, Audio
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,049K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard)Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Claude Opus 4.8 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-opus-4-8

Gemini 2.5 Flash Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-2.5-flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash FAQs

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 2.5 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

Claude Opus 4.8 is $5.00 and Gemini 2.5 Flash is $0.30 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.8 is $25.00 and Gemini 2.5 Flash is $2.50 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.8 supports 1,000K and Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.8 is not marked open weight; Gemini 2.5 Flash is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 2.5 Flash understand images?+

Claude Opus 4.8 is documented with image input; Gemini 2.5 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.8 supports 128K and Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 66K output tokens.

Do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 2.5 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Opus 4.8: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemini 2.5 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

Claude Opus 4.8 has 2 sourced provider routes; Gemini 2.5 Flash has 2, a tie.

Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback