Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.1 to 21.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 97.9% for Claude Opus 5 and 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 67.7 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.4 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | 1322 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1694 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 47.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 21.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1525 | 1324 |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 52.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 50.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.1 |
| LiveBench | — | 54.3% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1533 | 1309 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.4% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.1% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.6 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1558 | 1305 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 30.6 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1100 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.2 (#156)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1500 | 1323 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1575 | 1339 |
| LMArena French | 1522 | 1346 |
| LMArena German | 1522 | 1306 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1510 | 1302 |
| LMArena Korean | 1526 | 1325 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1328 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1313 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.6 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1516 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 78.3% |
| IFEval | — | 82.4% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#155)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1516 | 1321 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.9 (#172)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1506 | 1330 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1319 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1496 | 1307 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 34.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32.