Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash: which should you choose in 2026?
Claude Haiku 5.5 (by Anthropic) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (by Google) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5 if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | 42.6% Artificial Analysis |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | — | 37.0%±2.0 DataCurve |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | — | 74.6% LiveBench |
Benchmark sources
- AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| API provider | Anthropic | |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Oct 7, 2026 | May 19, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2025-01-01 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.10 | $1.50 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $0.50 | $9.00 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 7, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Claude Haiku 5.5 from Anthropic with Gemini 3.5 Flash from Google? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash FAQ
Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Claude Haiku 5.5 comparisons
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
GPT-6 Luna Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6 Luna Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6 Luna, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
Grok 4.7
xAI
Grok 4.7 is SpaceXAI's flagship model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, succeeding Grok 4.6.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More Gemini 3.5 Flash comparisons
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the flagship foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding.