Model comparison
Celeris-1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Celeris-1 unranked (Not scored); Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Celeris-1 and Gemini 3.5 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Celeris-1; 46 to Gemini 3.5 Flash.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Celeris-1 only
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Celeris-1 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Gemini 3.5 Flash is the better fit if you need the larger 1M context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Celeris-1 and Gemini 3.5 Flash finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Celeris-1. Gemini 3.5 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Celeris-1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 8K for Celeris-1.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Celeris-1$2 input / $6 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 output | Celeris-1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Celeris-1Not available | Gemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Celeris-1Not available | Gemini 3.5 Flash18.55 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Celeris-18K | Gemini 3.5 Flash1M | Gemini 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 56.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 57.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1349 | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 42.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 47.1% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 61.85% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 42.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 40.9% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 55.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 53.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 48.68% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 49.8% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 53.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeCeleris-1 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 40.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 51.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 60.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 22.7% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Celeris-1 and Gemini 3.5 Flash are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Celeris-1 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Celeris-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.9 versus 47.2. Gemini 3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.