Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Which one, when
claude-sonnet-5-5 costs about 2.7x more per token than gemini-3.8-flash on input, output and cache reads ($2/$10/$0.2 per million versus $0.75/$3.75/$0.075). Pick it when you need long single responses, up to 128,000 output tokens versus 65,536, from text and image inputs. Pick gemini-3.8-flash for cheaper high-volume work, a marginally larger context (1048576 versus 1000000 tokens), and audio or video inputs, which claude-sonnet-5-5 does not accept.
Benchmarks
Claude Sonnet 5.5: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $2 | $0.75 | 2.7× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $10 | $3.75 | 2.7× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.075 | 2.7× |
| 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 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | 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 Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image audio video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-28 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | 2026-03 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type | - |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| - |
| Default | adaptive, effort high | - |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Gemini 3.8 Flash
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.
out 205 tok latency 3.6 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.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases
**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]
out 444 tok latency 6.7 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.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.
out 300 tok latency 3.5 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.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.
out 266 tok latency 3.8 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-sonnet-5-5",
# 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)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-sonnet-5-5",
// model: "gemini-3.8-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
# "model": "gemini-3.8-flash", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-sonnet-5-5",
// Model: "gemini-3.8-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-sonnet-5-5")
// .model("gemini-3.8-flash") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.75 vs $2, 2.7× 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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.