新帳號 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

vs

什麼情況選哪一個

當您需要 claude-opus-5-5 常駐開啟的思考模式(無法停用)與較長的單次生成時請選擇它,因為它能產生高達 128000 個輸出 token,而 gemini-3.8-flash 為 65536 個;其輸入與輸出的每 token 成本大約高出 5.3x(每百萬 $4 與 $20 對比 $0.75 與 $3.75)。對於大批量的文字、圖片、音訊與視訊輸入,請選擇 gemini-3.8-flash,它具備稍大的 1048576 個 token 視窗,且快取讀取也較便宜(每百萬 $0.075 對比 $0.2)。兩者皆為 2026 年末發布且具備工具、程式碼與推理功能的模型,因此實際上的差異在於模態與價格對比輸出長度。

Benchmark 成績

高於平均沒有模型更高Claude Opus 5.59 / 97 / 9Gemini 3.8 Flash12 / 175 / 17
Claude Opus 5.5 Gemini 3.8 Flash 其他有成績的模型 其他模型平均 ★ 沒有模型分數更高
Terminal-bench 4.0
沒有模型分數更高 66.4%
19.1%
BioMysteryBench hard
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 56.5%
OSWorld 2.0 Partial score, batch tool enabled
N/A
59%
HealthBench Professional
N/A
52.1%
Finance Agent v2
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 61.4%
Legal Agent Benchmark
N/A
10%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
95.3%
AutomationBench
40%
N/A
CharXiv (RQ) no tools
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 86.2%

供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

Claude Opus 5.5 Gemini 3.8 Flash Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $4 $0.75 5.3×
輸出 / 1M tokens $20 $3.75 5.3×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.2 $0.075 2.7×
快取寫入 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) - -

費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。

兩者的相對位置:每 1M tokens 的輸入價格,涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 77 個聊天模型(對數尺度)

功能

Claude Opus 5.5 Gemini 3.8 Flash
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 一律開啟 是,但供應商未公布調整參數
結構化輸出 是 是
提示詞快取 顯式(由你標記前綴) 隱式 + 顯式
快取存活時間 5m default, 1h option 未公布
最小快取前綴 1024 個 token 4096 個 token

規格

Claude Opus 5.5 Gemini 3.8 Flash
輸入模態 文字 圖像 文字 圖像 音訊 影片
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-09-22 2026-09-02
知識截止日期 2026-06 2026-03
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 128K 66K
思考參數 output_config.effort -
可接受的值
output_config.effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
-
預設值 medium -

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過,不自行推測。 完整來源: Claude Opus 5.5 · Gemini 3.8 Flash

同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 3 sentences

When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.

輸出 263 tok (+102 思考) 延遲 5.7 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 705 tok (+624 思考) 延遲 6.4 s

是否照指令做(剛好三句,數得出來)、語氣是否貼合對象(寫給 CFO 看),以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。

提示詞 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. 檢查 修正後通過測試

Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 8/8 cases

```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:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]

輸出 723 tok (+303 思考) 延遲 10.4 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 1393 tok (+1149 思考) 延遲 10.1 s

修正是否真的正確(跑得起來)、說明的資訊密度,以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 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. 檢查 有效的 JSON,完全符合 schema

Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.

輸出 829 tok (+488 思考) 延遲 10.9 s

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

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

輸出 3989 tok (+3932 思考) 延遲 30.4 s

是否遵守 schema(不自創欄位)、面對幻覺誘因的表現(題目明確不給 guidance),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 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. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.

輸出 1263 tok (+1007 思考) 延遲 13.5 s

Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 3833 tok (+3688 思考) 延遲 21.8 s

是否遵守限制(字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句)、文字風格的特徵,以及長度控制。

改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換

下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID,要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。

from openai import OpenAI

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

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-opus-5-5",
    # model="gemini-3.8-flash",  # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

Claude Opus 5.5 和 Gemini 3.8 Flash 哪個比較便宜?

以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,Gemini 3.8 Flash 比較便宜($0.75 對 $4,相差 5.3×)。其他項目的結果可能相反,完整價目請看上表;實際成本要看你的用量組合。

可以只串接一次,就對 Claude Opus 5.5 和 Gemini 3.8 Flash 做 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點,用的也是同一把 API 金鑰,切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊,再直接比較帳單。

Claude Opus 5.5 與 Gemini 3.8 Flash 支援提示詞快取嗎?

支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率,所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載,實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。

相關比較