Roboflow

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemini 3.7 Flash side-by-side.

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 96.9% to 83.3%.

Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 85.2% (#5 of 61) for Gemini 3.7 Flash.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0031 per sample) and faster (13.2s vs 16.5s per sample).

Claude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.7 Flash

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026

PropertyClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.7 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersundisclosedUndisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.750
Output $/1M$0.500$3.75
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.2%
85.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0005$0.0031
Avg speed / sample13.23s16.50s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2
$0.0006
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
Object Detection (high)
68.2%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2
$0.0010
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
Counting (low)
68.9%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3
$0.0003
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
Counting (high)
73.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3
$0.0004
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
Identification (low)
83.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0002
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0003
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
OCR (low)
90.1%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0
$0.0006
88.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0
$0.0027
OCR (high)
88.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6
$0.0009
89.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9
$0.0093
Data Extraction (low)
85.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6
$0.0002
96.2%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
Data Extraction (high)
87.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6
$0.0002
95.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9
$0.0023
Reasoning (low)
68.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9
$0.0004
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
Reasoning (high)
74.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5
$0.0006
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overview

Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.

Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#5 of 61) against 77.2% (#20 of 61) for Claude Haiku 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 96.9% against 83.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0031. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.2s per inference against 16.5s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.