AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5VSGoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Our Take
We recommend Claude Haiku 4.5 for a 1.7x API cost saving and superior coding capability, or Gemini 2.5 Pro if your workflow requires peak reasoning. While Claude Haiku 4.5 is more cost-effective, Gemini 2.5 Pro holds a clear reasoning advantage. Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 for code generation, or Gemini 2.5 Pro for complex logical reasoning.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Verified benchmark. Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%, while Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 59.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73%, while Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 84.4%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 2.5 Pro pricing ($1.25/M input, $10/M output) is 1.7x cheaper than Claude Haiku 4.5 ($1/M input, $5/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)Winner (+13.7%)
73.3%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
73%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.7x cheaper
$2.00Input: $1.00 | Output: $5.00Context Window
200k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)
59.6%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+11.4%)
84.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$3.44Input: $1.25 | Output: $10.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro. Claude Haiku 4.5 has a blended cost of $2.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.7x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro at $3.44/1M tokens.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 73.3% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks) compared to Gemini 2.5 Pro which scores 59.6%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.