Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber vs GPT-5.6 Terra

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No comparison
72.57/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber unranked (Not scored); GPT-5.6 Terra #11 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GPT-5.6 Terra share 1 comparable benchmark result. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber; 44 to GPT-5.6 Terra.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
1
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber only
0
GPT-5.6 Terra only
44
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GPT-5.6 Terra is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GPT-5.6 Terra
CategoryGemini 3.5 Flash CyberΔGPT-5.6 Terra
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra87.4
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra63.4
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra83.9
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra92.9
MathGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra80.8
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Terra80.7

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot availableGPT-5.6 Terra$2.5 input / $15 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot availableGPT-5.6 TerraNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot availableGPT-5.6 TerraNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.5 Flash CyberNot availableGPT-5.6 Terra1MA complete context comparison is not available.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
CyberGymSource 83.2%81.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 87.4%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 87.5%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 50.2%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 23.2%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 53.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 54.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1581Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 85.2%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 51.0%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 31.8%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 45.6%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 57.6%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 88%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 38.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
SWE-bench ProSource 63.4%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 87.4%Not comparable
deepSweSource 69.6%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource 55.8%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 64.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 76.7%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 83.9%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source 0.8%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 74.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 30.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
GPQASource 92.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.9%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource 57.7%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 32.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 41.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -0.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 85.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 84.9%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 84.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 68.300%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
MMMU-ProSource 80.7%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 82%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 80.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 Flash CyberGPT-5.6 TerraResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GPT-5.6 Terra on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GPT-5.6 Terra today?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber: Pricing unavailable GPT-5.6 Terra: $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026

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.