Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 2.5 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.5 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.

GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 4

Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.

Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.

Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.

Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Opus 4Gemini 2.5 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2025Jul 2025
Context Window200K1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$15.00$0.300
Output $/1M$75.00$2.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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
56.72%
55.22%
Avg Response Time19.74s24.91s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens171
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0005
Defect Detection
66.7%(10/15)
60%(9/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
0%(0/10)
Object Understanding
64.3%(9/14)
71.4%(10/14)
Spatial Understanding
57.9%(11/19)
52.6%(10/19)
OCR
Overall Score
79.04%
Avg Response Time2.39s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290
Median output tokens81
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0003
Focused Scene OCR
79.8%(79/99)
Handwritten Math
80%(8/10)
License Plate Recognition
90%(27/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
VQA & Extraction
71.7%(43/60)

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