Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.00
per month
Input cost
Output cost
Cost per request
Requests/month
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.00
per month
Input cost
Output cost
Cost per request
Requests/month

Other Fast and Budget Models

DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek
$0.435 / $0.87 per 1M
1M context
Kimi K2.6
Moonshot
$0.95 / $4 per 1M
256K context
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
$0.75 / $3 per 1M
1M context

Which Model for Which Use Case?

Real-Time Chat & Support

Low-latency conversational AI. Both deliver fast responses. Haiku 4.5 at $1/$5 is 33-44% cheaper, making it better for high-volume chatbots. Gemini 3.5 Flash at $1.50/$9 offers 5x more context for longer conversations.

Budget chat: Haiku 4.5 | Long conversations: Gemini 3.5 Flash

Document Analysis

Processing and summarizing long documents. Gemini 3.5 Flash's 1M context window handles documents up to 4x longer than Haiku 4.5's 200K. For long-form analysis, Gemini is the clear choice despite the higher per-token cost.

Long docs: Gemini 3.5 Flash

Classification & Moderation

High-volume content classification, spam detection, sentiment analysis. Short inputs, short outputs. Haiku 4.5 at $1/$5 is 33-44% cheaper per token, making it the cost leader for high-throughput classification jobs.

Better value: Haiku 4.5

Translation at Scale

Bulk translation workloads with moderate document lengths. Haiku 4.5 saves 33-44% per token for documents under 200K. Gemini 3.5 Flash handles longer documents with its 1M context but costs more per token.

Short docs: Haiku 4.5 | Long docs: Gemini 3.5 Flash

Comparing fast AI models?

APIpulse lets you compare all 88 models including both Gemini 3.5 Flash ($1.50/$9) and Haiku 4.5 ($1/$5), save scenarios, and export cost reports for your team.

88 models across 10 providers
Save up to 10 scenarios
Export PDF cost reports
Optimize — save up to 40%
Free Tools →

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is faster — Gemini 3.5 Flash or Haiku 4.5?

Both are optimized for speed. Gemini 3.5 Flash from Google excels at ultra-low latency with strong throughput. Claude Haiku 4.5 is Anthropic's fastest model. In practice, both deliver sub-second responses. Gemini edges out on raw throughput for simple tasks; Haiku 4.5 maintains better instruction-following quality at speed.

Is Haiku 4.5 cheaper?

Yes. Haiku 4.5 costs $1/$5 per 1M tokens vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at $1.50/$9. That's 33% cheaper on input and 44% cheaper on output. At 1M input + 500K output tokens/month, Haiku 4.5 costs $3.50 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash's $6 — saving $2.50/month.

How do they compare on context?

Gemini 3.5 Flash supports a 1M token context window — 5x larger than Haiku 4.5's 200K. For long documents, large codebases, or extended conversations, Gemini is significantly better. For shorter interactions under 200K tokens, both work equally well.

When should I pick each?

Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash ($1.50/$9) for large context needs (up to 1M tokens), Google ecosystem integration, or when your documents exceed 200K. Pick Haiku 4.5 ($1/$5) for the lowest cost on tasks under 200K context: chatbots, classification, summarization, and high-volume batch processing.

📊 Live Pricing Dashboard
Real-time prices for 88 models
Savings Calculator
Find your cheapest alternatives

Related Comparisons

5 Cheaper Gemini Alternatives →
Save 60-97% on API costs
Sonnet 4.6 vs Kimi K2.6
Mid-tier vs budget
Opus 4.8 vs Kimi K2.6
Premium vs ultra-budget
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Sonnet 4.6
Budget champion vs mid-tier

Related Tools

Migration Checklist →
Switch providers in 5 steps
Free Pricing Widget
Embed live AI pricing on your site
🔌 Free MCP Server →
📋 Full Pricing Dashboard →
Compare all 88 models side by side
🔥 Pricing Heatmap →
Visual cost comparison across 88 models
Share on X LinkedIn

All Tools Are Free

No signup required to 67-model comparison, migration code snippets, PDF reports, price alerts, and cost monitoring. ✅ All tools free.

Free Tools →
This was a snapshot. What about next month?
Prices change. New models launch. Our tools catch what a one-time calculation can't — and saves you money every month.
Free Tools → 🔍 Free audit first