Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google Gemini |
| Input / 1M | $1.00 | $2.00 |
| Output / 1M | $5.00 | $12.00 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.10 (−90%) | $0.20 (−90%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $1.63 | $3.76 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Cache capture | 90% | 82% |
| Warm TTFT | 110ms (−66%) | 360ms (−56%) |
| Quality index | 80 | 94 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 when it is cheaper once prefix reuse is priced in, it answers faster on warm cache hits, it captures more of the available reuse.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview when it scores higher on the composite quality index, it carries the larger 1M context window.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads on quality while Claude Haiku 4.5 leads on reuse-adjusted cost. Send latency- and budget-sensitive volume to Claude Haiku 4.5 and reserve Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview for the hard requests. Zumik's aliases route between them automatically under policy.
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, answered.
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, Claude Haiku 4.5 blends to about $1.63 per 1M tokens and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview to about $3.76. Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has the larger window: 1M vs 200K tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
Claude Haiku 4.5 shows higher measured cache capture (90% vs 82%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.