Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Compare Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Overview
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 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Claude Opus 4 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 56.72% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 19.74s | 1.86s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 10 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | |
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