Source-tracked model comparison

How do Claude Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash costs compare for email drafting?

Compare verified pricing and model limits for moderate-volume generation with controlled output. The cost example uses a email drafting workload and does not assume equal model quality.

Direct cost answer: Claude Haiku 4.5 is estimated at $414.00 per month and Gemini 2.5 Flash at $174.20 for 2,000 input tokens, 500 output tokens, and 100,000 monthly requests. Gemini 2.5 Flash is $239.80 lower under these assumptions. This does not identify a quality winner.
medium priorityactiveSources checked 2026-07-12 / 2026-07-12
Tracked facts

Pricing and model limits

Prices are USD per 1M tokens under each model's verified default profile.

FieldClaude Haiku 4.5Gemini 2.5 Flash
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
API model IDclaude-haiku-4-5-20251001gemini-2.5-flash
Input / 1M$1.00$0.30
Cached input / 1M$0.10$0.03
Output / 1M$5.00$2.50
Context window200,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Maximum output64,000 tokens65,536 tokens
Accepted inputtext, imagetext, image, video, audio
Example workload

Email drafting cost scenario

2,000 input and 500 output tokens per request, 100,000 monthly requests, and 20% cached input.

Anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

$414.00 / month
Input cost
$164.00
Output cost
$250.00
Per 1,000 calls
$4.14
Pricing profile
standard
View model details
Google

Gemini 2.5 Flash

$174.20 / month
Input cost
$49.20
Output cost
$125.00
Per 1,000 calls
$1.742
Pricing profile
standard / text
View model details

Cost result: Gemini 2.5 Flash is $239.80 lower per month for these assumptions. This is a price comparison, not a model-quality ranking.

StackLens assessment

Questions to answer before choosing

  • Which model follows the required format and tone more reliably?
  • How much repeated instruction context can use cached-input pricing?
  • What regeneration rate appears on representative drafts?
Workload caveat

What this estimate leaves out

Deliverability, CRM, enrichment, and human review costs are not included.

Latency, reliability, output quality, retries, regional processing, and provider-specific tool charges can change the practical decision.