Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 35× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 34 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic

40.8

Rank #136 Confirmed

Gemini 2.5 Flash Google

39.0

Rank #162 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 34 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Gemini 2.5 Flash in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 38.1 to 22.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Terminal-Bench: 38% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 17.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash specifications
Claude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index40.839.0
Released2025-08-052025-04-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1.05M
Max output32K66K
Input $ / M tokens$15$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$75$2.50
Results tracked4854

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.5 (#210)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
WeirdML45.9%41.9%
LMArena Coding14791424
ALE-Bench674.77661.88
SWE-bench Verified73.3%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—28.7%
Aider Polyglot—55.1%
LMArena WebDev1390—
AlgoTune1.34—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.6 (#67)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
Terminal-Bench38%17.1%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—56.2%
GDPval43.6%—
TheAgentCompany—41.1%
Cybench42%—
DeepResearch Bench48.3%—
BALROG—33.5%
LMArena Search1148—
METR Time Horizons66.8%—
Vending-Bench 2—548.84

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.2 (#271)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
SimpleBench60%41.2%
EnigmaEval7.2%2.7%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431422
DTBench80%76.5%
LMCA37.1%27.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index144.11143.04
ForecastBench6260.6
ARC-AGI-2—2.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—56.8%
ARC-AGI-1—33.3%
CritPt—1.1%
Chess Puzzles7%—
EBR-Bench7.9%—
Mystery Game Puzzles21%—

Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 38.1 (#87)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.9%73.1%
LMArena Math14301415
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)7.2%4.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%4.2%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)12.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
Omni-MATH—38.5%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.1 (#162)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam11.5%12.1%
Confabulations17.1%16.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%7.8%
LMArena Expert14391426
GPQA Diamond77.3%—
MMLU-Pro—63.9%
GPQA (HELM)—39%

Multimodal Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.2 (#31)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
VPCT35%46.2%
LMArena Vision—1254
GeoBench—76%
SpatialViz-Bench—36.9%

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.5 (#83)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English14051410
LMArena Chinese14271450
LMArena French14321433
LMArena German14121419
LMArena Japanese13781403
LMArena Korean13811385
LMArena Russian14211415
LMArena Spanish14481421

Instruction Following Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.9 (#50)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14361405
IFEval—89.8%

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#16)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query14551419
Fiction.LiveBench—77.8%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), Gemini 2.5 Flash: 54.0 (#153)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text14191417
LMArena Creative Writing14121400
Short-Story Creative Writing84.7%76.5%
LMArena Multi-Turn14441408
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1137
WildBench—81.7%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.8 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 35× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Gemini 2.5 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 35.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash share?

34 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54.

Related comparisons

Go deeper