Model Comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 1.5 FlashWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 1.5 Flash — which is better?

Claude Opus 5 (by Anthropic) and Gemini 1.5 Flash (by Google) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

On price, Gemini 1.5 Flash is roughly 38.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 1.5 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Claude Opus 5 if…

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose Gemini 1.5 Flash if…

  • cost matters — it's about 38.1x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flashdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemini 1.5 Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 5 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than Gemini 1.5 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 5 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 41.7x more expensive than Gemini 1.5 Flash ($0.60/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 5 is more expensive than Gemini 1.5 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Jul 24 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Google
Gemini 1.5 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.60
Best providerGoogle
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 1.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Opus 5's 1,000,000 tokens. Claude Opus 5 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 1.5 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Google
Gemini 1.5 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Fri Jul 24 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemini 1.5 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Closed source

Gemini 1.5 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5 was released on 2026-07-24, while Gemini 1.5 Flash was released on 2024-05-01.

Claude Opus 5 is 27 months newer than Gemini 1.5 Flash.

Claude Opus 5

Jul 24, 2026

0 days ago

2.2yr newer
Gemini 1.5 Flash

May 1, 2024

2.2 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 1.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-11-01, while Claude Opus 5's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 1.5 Flash's training data extends to 2023-11-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude Opus 5's cutoff date.

Claude Opus 5

—

Gemini 1.5 Flash

Nov 2023

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 5 is available from Anthropic. Gemini 1.5 Flash is available from Google.

Claude Opus 5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Gemini 1.5 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.60/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic

No standout differentiators in the data we have for this pair.

Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
AnthropicClaude Opus 5
GoogleGemini 1.5 Flash
Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5
✓ Preferred
Gemini 1.5 Flash
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
Google
Gemini 1.5 Flash

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 1.5 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Gemini 1.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic) and Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Claude Opus 5 compare to Gemini 1.5 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5 scores BrowseComp: 90.8%, BioMysteryBench: 90.1%, OSWorld 2.0: 70.6%, DeepSWE 1.1: 68.8%, Humanity's Last Exam: 64.7%. Gemini 1.5 Flash scores XSTest: 97.0%, FLEURS: 90.4%, HellaSwag: 86.5%, GSM8k: 86.2%, BIG-Bench Hard: 85.5%.

Is Claude Opus 5 cheaper than Gemini 1.5 Flash?

Gemini 1.5 Flash is 33.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 5 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Gemini 1.5 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.60/M output via google.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 5 supports 1.0M tokens and Gemini 1.5 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.15/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 1.5 Flash?

Claude Opus 5 is developed by Anthropic and Gemini 1.5 Flash is developed by Google.

Related comparisons