Claude 3 Haiku vs Gemini 3 Flash
Compare Claude 3 Haiku and Gemini 3 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Image Captioning, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Claude 3 Haiku vs Gemini 3 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude 3 Haiku is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude 3 Haiku vs Gemini 3 Flash: Overview
Claude 3 Haiku is a large language model developed by Anthropic and released in March 2024 as part of the Claude 3 family, alongside Claude 3 Sonnet and Claude 3 Opus. It is designed to be the fastest and most cost-efficient model in the series, optimized for high-throughput applications.
Like the other Claude 3 models, Haiku is multimodal, able to process both text and image inputs while generating text outputs. It supports a context window of up to 200,000 tokens, with Anthropic noting that the Claude 3 models are technically capable of handling inputs exceeding one million tokens in special cases.
Haiku is positioned as a model well-suited for scenarios that demand speed and scalability at lower cost, such as customer support, summarization, and other tasks where rapid responses are prioritized. Compared to the larger Claude 3 Sonnet and Opus, Haiku provides lower latency and higher efficiency, while the larger models offer stronger reasoning and depth of analysis.
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
Claude 3 Haiku vs Gemini 3 Flash Comparison Table
| Property | Claude 3 Haiku | Gemini 3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2024 | Dec 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 74.63% | |
| Avg Response Time | 9.85s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 290 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 93.01% | |
| Avg Response Time | 12.40s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 160 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0010 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 94.9%(94/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 100%(10/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 88.3%(53/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology