New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

vs

Which one, when

claude-opus-5 costs about 6.7x more than gemini-3.8-flash on input, output, and cache reads ($5/$25/$0.5 per million versus $0.75/$3.75/$0.075), and it carries a thinking capability that can be disabled plus a 128000-token max output. gemini-3.8-flash accepts audio and video alongside text and images, has a slightly larger 1048576-token context, and caps output at 65536 tokens. Pick claude-opus-5 for text and image work that needs long single responses or explicit reasoning control; pick gemini-3.8-flash for cheaper high-volume calls or any multimodal input beyond images.

Benchmarks

LeadsAbove averageNo peer higherClaude Opus 5836 / 4310 / 43Gemini 3.8 Flash912 / 175 / 17

17 measured on both.

Claude Opus 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
68.8%
73.7%
BioMysteryBench hard
49.4%
no peer scored higher 56.5%
OSWorld 2.0 Partial score, batch tool enabled
no peer scored higher 75.4%
59%
ExploitBench (Cap%)
70%
N/A
HealthBench Professional
59.8%
52.1%
Finance Agent v2
58.6%
no peer scored higher 61.4%
Legal Agent Benchmark
6.7%
10%
GPQA Diamond
93.4%
95.3%
BrowseComp
90.8%
N/A
CharXiv (RQ) no tools
83.7%
no peer scored higher 86.2%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Opus 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $5 $0.75 6.7×
Output / 1M tokens $25 $3.75 6.7×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.075 6.7×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) - -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 71 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Claude Opus 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable yes - vendor dial not published
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option not published
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 4096 tokens

Specs

Claude Opus 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash
Input modalities text image text image audio video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-07-24 2026-09-02
Knowledge cutoff 2026-05 2026-03
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 66K
Thinking parameter
  • thinking.type
  • output_config.effort
-
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
-
Default

thinking on

effort
  • high (Claude API and Claude Code)
-

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Opus 5 · Gemini 3.8 Flash

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Opus 5 passed · 3 sentences

When reasoning is enabled, the model generates a hidden chain of "thinking" tokens before it writes the visible answer, and those internal tokens are billed at the output rate even though no one ever sees them — commonly 3–10x more tokens than the response itself. Because output tokens are priced several times higher than input tokens, that added volume hits us at our most expensive rate, which is why the bill roughly doubled while our request count stayed flat. The spend is controllable: we can cap the reasoning budget per call, route only genuinely hard requests to reasoning mode and cheaper models for the rest, and track cost per successfully completed task rather than cost per token, since a single correct answer usually beats three cheap retries plus human cleanup.

out 529 tok latency 9.0 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating hidden "thinking tokens" to work through logic step-by-step before producing a final answer. Because AI vendors bill for every single token processed—visible or not—this internal deliberation dramatically inflated our billable volume per query. In short, while our total number of user requests remained flat, the cost per transaction doubled to buy higher accuracy on complex tasks.

out 705 tok (+624 thinking) latency 6.4 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Opus 5 passed · 8/8 cases

## Fixed version ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` ## The bug The counters were tracking the wrong quantity: `cur` counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *elements in the current run*, and both counters started at `0` instead of `1`. Since a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* adjacent equal pairs, every result came back one too small — `[1, 1]` returned 1, `[3, 3, 3]` returned 2 — and a single-element list returned 0 because the loop body never executed and `best` kept its initial value of `0`. […]

out 1094 tok latency 16.1 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

Here is the corrected function: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function counted equal-neighbor transitions rather than the actual items making up each run. Because `cur` started at `0` (and was reset to `0` on mismatches), every run was undercounted by one: single-element lists returned `0` because the loop never executed, and any subsequent run—including those ending at the last index—recorded a count of $N - 1$ instead of $N$. The fix handles empty input upfront, initializes both `cur` and `best` to `1` (since any single element forms a run of length 1), and resets `cur` to `1` whenever a new run begins.

out 1393 tok (+1149 thinking) latency 10.1 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Opus 5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: - **quarter**: "September quarter" is labeled Q3 because the text refers to an upcoming "Q4 close," implying a calendar-aligned fiscal year. No fiscal year is given. - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is stated as constant-currency and hedged ("call it"), so it's approximate; the currency is not explicitly stated as USD. - **growth_pct**: "up eleven and change" means slightly more than 11, so 11 is a floor rather than an exact figure.

out 539 tok latency 7.6 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```

out 3989 tok (+3932 thinking) latency 30.4 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Opus 5 passed · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** We're introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in the API Gateway. Repeated system prompts, long documents, and few-shot examples are stored once at the gateway layer and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Instead of paying full input token costs on every request, your application sends a cache reference, and the gateway rehydrates the context before forwarding it downstream. Why does that matter? Teams running high-volume agents and retrieval pipelines typically see input token spend fall 40 to 70 percent, with median latency dropping by several hundred milliseconds. Caches are scoped per project, encrypted at rest, and invalidated automatically when a prompt template changes. Enable it with a single header, and see the docs for TTL tuning and per-route controls.

out 1593 tok latency 19.1 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Why pay multiple model providers for the exact same output? Introducing Universal Prompt Cache, our latest API gateway capability engineered to cut compute expenses and drop inference latency. When your application makes a call, the gateway inspects a central memory layer before routing traffic to external LLMs. If an identical query was previously processed by OpenAI, Anthropic, or Mistral, our gateway returns that response immediately. This shared cache eliminates duplicate token fees and insulates your production apps from vendor rate limits or unexpected downtime. Developers can easily customize expiration settings, enforce strict data privacy controls, and configure invalidation logic across every endpoint. Stop wasting your budget on repeated queries. Enable prompt caching in your dashboard to accelerate your pipeline today.

out 3833 tok (+3688 thinking) latency 21.8 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-opus-5",
    # model="gemini-3.8-flash",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.75 vs $5, 6.7× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Opus 5 against Gemini 3.8 Flash without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies