Claude Haiku 4.6 Anthropic
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.000938
Output: $0.000938
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 3,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.003125
- Output Cost: $0.000938
- Total Cost: $0.002656
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000050
- Tokens per dollar: 19,952,941 tokens
- Context Window: 200000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 850 tokens per second and 75ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 1 minute, 6.90 seconds
- Latency: 75 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 850 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 794 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Claude Haiku 4.6. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.001125
Output: $0.001125
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 3,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.003125
- Output Cost: $0.001125
- Total Cost: $0.002844
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000054
- Tokens per dollar: 18,637,363 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 1,000 tokens per second and 80ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 56.89 seconds
- Latency: 80 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 1,000 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 935 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to Claude Haiku 4.6| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs Claude Haiku 4.6 | vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000913 Best Value | ↓ 65.6% cheaper | ↓ 67.9% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Grok Code Fast 1
xAI
|
$0.002500 | ↓ 5.9% cheaper | ↓ 12.1% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.002844 | ↑ 7.1% more | Same price |
| #4 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.003938 | ↑ 48.2% more | ↑ 38.5% more |
| #5 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.004563 | ↑ 71.8% more | ↑ 60.4% more |
| #6 |
GPT-5.4 mini
OpenAI
|
$0.008531 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 221.2% more | ↑ 200% more |
| #7 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.009875 | ↑ 271.8% more | ↑ 247.3% more |
| #8 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.010469 | ↑ 294.1% more | ↑ 268.1% more |
| #9 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.010625 | ↑ 300% more | ↑ 273.6% more |
| #10 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.010863 | ↑ 308.9% more | ↑ 282% more |
| #11 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.011375 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↑ 328.2% more | ↑ 300% more |
| #12 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.017063 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 542.4% more | ↑ 500% more |
| #13 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.018250 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 587.1% more | ↑ 541.8% more |
| #14 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.022531 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 748.2% more | ↑ 692.3% more |
| #15 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.022531 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↑ 748.2% more | ↑ 692.3% more |
| #16 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.031875 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 1100% more | ↑ 1020.9% more |
| #17 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.032188 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 1111.8% more | ↑ 1031.9% more |
| #18 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
|
$0.045500 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 1612.9% more | ↑ 1500% more |
| #19 |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 1900% more | ↑ 1768.1% more |
| #20 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 1900% more | ↑ 1768.1% more |
| #21 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.053125 (rounded ~ $0.05) | ↑ 1900% more | ↑ 1768.1% more |
| #22 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.056875 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 2041.2% more | ↑ 1900% more |
| #23 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.056875 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 2041.2% more | ↑ 1900% more |
| #24 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.056875 (rounded ~ $0.06) | ↑ 2041.2% more | ↑ 1900% more |
| #25 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.098750 (rounded ~ $0.10) | ↑ 3617.6% more | ↑ 3372.5% more |
| #26 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.113750 (rounded ~ $0.11) | ↑ 4182.4% more | ↑ 3900% more |
| #27 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.197500 (rounded ~ $0.20) | ↑ 7335.3% more | ↑ 6845.1% more |
| #28 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.270375 | ↑ 10078.8% more | ↑ 9407.7% more |
| #29 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.270375 | ↑ 10078.8% more | ↑ 9407.7% more |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Grok Code Fast 1 xAI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
Grok 4.3 xAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
o4-mini OpenAI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
Comparing Value: Claude Haiku 4.6 vs. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for 50,000 Tokens
This comparison delves into the cost and performance of two leading models, Claude Haiku 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, for processing approximately 50,000 tokens. This volume is representative of analyzing moderate-sized code pull requests or complex documentation sections, offering a practical benchmark for academic researchers and developers evaluating AI assistants.
Claude Haiku 4.6: Speed and Affordability
Anthropic’s Claude Haiku 4.6 is designed for speed and cost-efficiency. It boasts a 200,000 token context window, making it capable of handling substantial inputs. For 50,000 tokens, the input cost is approximately $0.0125 (based on $0.25 per 1 million input tokens). Its strengths lie in rapid response times and a balanced feature set for text and tool use, which is beneficial for code review tasks requiring external information or function calls.
- Model Name: Claude Haiku 4.6
- Provider: Anthropic
- Context Window: 200,000 tokens
- Pricing (per 1M tokens): $0.25 (input) / $1.25 (output)
- Estimated Cost for 50K Tokens: ~$0.0125
- Key Capabilities: text, vision, tools
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: Versatility and Scale
Google’s Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite offers a massive 1,000,000 token context window and a similarly attractive price point of $0.25 per 1 million input tokens. For 50,000 tokens, the cost is also approximately $0.0125. What sets it apart is its broader multimodal support, including OCR, which could be useful if code snippets are embedded in images or scanned documents. Its extensive capabilities make it a versatile choice for various research and development needs.
- Model Name: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
- Provider: Google
- Context Window: 1,000,000 tokens
- Pricing (per 1M tokens): $0.25 (input) / $1.50 (output)
- Estimated Cost for 50K Tokens: ~$0.0125
- Key Capabilities: text, vision, audio, video, tools, ocr
Code Analysis: Making the Choice
Both models are excellent for handling code analysis tasks at the 50,000 token level. Claude Haiku 4.6 might have a slight edge in pure speed for text-based tasks, while Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite offers broader multimodal capabilities and a much larger context window, providing greater flexibility for future expansion or more complex inputs. For a code review assistant, the ability to use tools is a significant advantage, present in both models.
Academic researchers often benefit from the cost predictability of these models, enabling them to conduct extensive experiments without prohibitive expenses. The decision between them may come down to specific workflow requirements: speed and simplicity versus broader potential functionality and context handling.
Best Use Cases: Cost-effective text and multimodal analysis, rapid prototyping of AI assistants, and research projects requiring broad AI capabilities on a budget.