Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemini 3.5 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 3.5 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash: Overview
Claude 4.1 Opus, released by Anthropic in August 2025, is the upgraded flagship of the Claude 4 family, building on Opus 4 with stronger reasoning and agentic capabilities. Like its predecessor, it is multimodal and optimized for text, code, and tool use, with support for large context windows suited to multi-file codebases, technical workflows, and long-horizon problem solving.
On benchmarks, Opus 4.1 improves coding performance, reaching ~74.5% on SWE-Bench Verified compared to Opus 4’s ~72.5%. It demonstrates more precise debugging, refactoring, and orchestration of agentic tasks while maintaining similar safety and alignment safeguards. It is best suited for enterprise-scale software development, research automation, and advanced reasoning workflows where reliability and depth of analysis are critical.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | May 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $1.50 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $9.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 79.1% |
| Avg Response Time | 7.09s | 6.71s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 140 | 294 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.040 | $0.0043 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 60%(6/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 78.9%(15/19) |
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