Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Anthropic's Claude Haiku 4.5 and Google's Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite both target production language workloads, but they price and behave differently. Here is the side-by-side.
Pricing checked against provider documentation on . How we verify
The short answer
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is the cheaper option — roughly 3.6x less on a blended workload, and it suits ultra-cheap high-volume tasks. Claude Haiku 4.5 justifies its premium when you need lowest-latency claude responses. Only Claude Haiku 4.5 does native reasoning, which matters for multi-step tasks but adds billable thinking tokens.
Anthropic • Claude 4.5
$1.00 / $5.00
/ 1M tokens (input / output)
The fastest model Anthropic ships, still on the Claude 4.5 generation with a 200K window and an early-2025 knowledge cutoff. Worth it when response latency is the product requirement; otherwise Sonnet 5 offers more capability and five times the context for twice the price.
Google • Gemini 3.1
$0.25 / $1.50
/ 1M tokens (input / output)
Google's efficiency tier and a long-term stable target, priced for workloads measured in millions of calls rather than thousands. It gives up the deeper reasoning of 3.5 Flash, so it suits mechanical tasks — classification, extraction, moderation — where a million tokens of context still helps but chain-of-thought does not.
Input price
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 75% cheaper than Claude Haiku 4.5 on input tokens.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is 70% cheaper than Claude Haiku 4.5 on output tokens — usually the side that dominates the bill.
Monthly cost at three workload sizes
Standard (non-batch, non-cached) rates. Reasoning models will exceed these figures because thinking tokens bill as output.
| Workload | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light — 1M in / 200K out | $2 | $1 | $1 |
| Moderate — 10M in / 2M out | $20 | $6 | $15 |
| Heavy — 100M in / 20M out | $200 | $55 | $145 |
Specification comparison
| Attribute | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Input (/ 1M tokens) | $1.00 | $0.25 |
| Output (/ 1M tokens) | $5.00 | $1.50 |
| Cached input | $0.10 | — |
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Max output | 64,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Native reasoning | Yes | No |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-02 | 2025-01 |
| Relative latency | low | low |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API model ID | claude-haiku-4-5 | gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
| Status | stable | stable |
Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 if…
- Real-time chat suggestions
- Lightweight extraction and tagging
- Guardrail and routing calls
- High-frequency background jobs
Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite if…
- Content moderation at volume
- Classification and routing
- Lightweight summarization
- Cheap long-context retrieval
Frequently asked
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite cheaper?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is cheaper. On a blended 3:1 input-to-output workload it costs about 3.6x less than Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the larger window at 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Should I use Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite?
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 for lowest-latency claude responses. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite for ultra-cheap high-volume tasks. If cost dominates the decision, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite wins; if you need the capability ceiling, benchmark both on your own evals before committing.