Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Quale scegliere e quando
claude-sonnet-5-5 costa circa 2.7x in più per token rispetto a gemini-3.8-flash su input, output e letture dalla cache ($2/$10/$0.2 per milione contro $0.75/$3.75/$0.075). Sceglilo quando hai bisogno di lunghe risposte singole, fino a 128,000 token di output contro 65,536, da input di testo e immagini. Scegli gemini-3.8-flash per lavori ad alto volume più economici, un contesto marginalmente più ampio (1048576 contro 1000000 token), e input audio o video, che claude-sonnet-5-5 non accetta.
Benchmark
Claude Sonnet 5.5: il fornitore non ha pubblicato risultati di benchmark.
Dati pubblicati dai fornitori: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Prezzi
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M token | $2 | $0.75 | 2.7× |
| Output / 1M token | $10 | $3.75 | 2.7× |
| Lettura cache / 1M token | $0.2 | $0.075 | 2.7× |
| Scrittura in cache | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - | - |
Le tariffe provengono dal catalogo live al momento della build; la pagina di ciascun modello riporta la scheda attuale.
Dove si posizionano - prezzo di input per 1M di token rispetto a tutti gli 76 modelli chat con questa unità di fatturazione (scala logaritmica)
Capacità
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Utilizzo dei tool | sì | sì |
| Controllo del ragionamento | sempre attivo | sì - il fornitore non pubblica il controllo |
| Output strutturato | sì | sì |
| Prompt caching | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) | implicito + esplicito |
| Durata della cache | 5m default, 1h option | non pubblicato |
| Prefisso minimo in cache | 1024 token | 4096 token |
Specifiche
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalità di input | testo immagine | testo immagine audio video |
| Modalità di output | testo | testo |
| Rilascio | 2026-09-28 | 2026-09-02 |
| Cutoff di conoscenza | 2026-06 | 2026-03 |
| Finestra di contesto | 1M | 1M |
| Output massimo | 128K | 66K |
| Parametro thinking | thinking.type | - |
| Valori accettati | thinking.type
| - |
| Predefinito | adaptive, effort high | - |
Le specifiche sono trascritte dalla documentazione di ciascun fornitore; una riga che un fornitore non pubblica viene omessa anziché essere dedotta. Fonti complete: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Gemini 3.8 Flash
Un solo prompt, entrambi i modelli - misurati attraverso il gateway
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 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 latenza 3.6 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 6.4 s
Rispetto dell'istruzione (esattamente tre frasi - contabili), adattamento al pubblico (registro da CFO), e il divario di fatturazione del pensiero nascosto che i contatori di token qui sotto rivelano.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 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 latenza 6.7 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 10.1 s
Se la correzione è davvero giusta (eseguibile), la densità della spiegazione, e l'efficienza in token su un compito delimitato.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 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 latenza 3.5 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 30.4 s
Aderenza allo schema (nessun campo inventato), pressione di allucinazione (guidance è esplicitamente sospesa), e differenze nel percorso di output strutturato.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 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 latenza 3.8 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash superato · 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 ragionamento) latenza 21.8 s
Rispetto dei vincoli (budget di parole, elenco di parole vietate, l'unica domanda), impronta stilistica, e controllo della lunghezza.
Passa dall'uno all'altro con una sola riga
Entrambi gli id sono presenti in ogni scheda qui sotto - la coppia di righe evidenziata è l'unica modifica. Stesso endpoint, stessa chiave, stessa struttura della richiesta.
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", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
"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", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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") // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Qual è più economico, Claude Sonnet 5.5 o Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Gemini 3.8 Flash è più economico per input / 1m token ($0.75 contro $2, 2.7× di differenza). Altre righe potrebbero indicare il contrario - la tabella sopra riporta la scheda completa, e il costo reale dipende dal tuo mix.
Posso fare un A/B test di Claude Sonnet 5.5 contro Gemini 3.8 Flash senza due integrazioni?
Sì. Entrambi sono serviti tramite lo stesso endpoint compatibile con OpenAI con una singola chiave API - il passaggio richiede la modifica della stringa del modello in una sola riga, quindi puoi instradare una frazione del traffico verso ciascuno e confrontare direttamente le fatture.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 e Gemini 3.8 Flash supportano il prompt caching?
Sì - entrambi fatturano le letture in cache a un prezzo inferiore rispetto alla loro tariffa di input, quindi i carichi di lavoro con warm-prefix costano meno di quanto suggeriscano le tariffe di listino. Le righe esatte per la lettura in cache si trovano nella tabella dei prezzi qui sopra.