Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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-Lite and GPT-5.6 Terra share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 26 to GPT-5.6 Terra.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 3
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; GPT-5.6 Terra is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.6 Terra 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.
GPT-5.6 Terra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone.
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 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | Margin→ 24.0 | GPT-5.6 Terra87.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin→ 9.2 | GPT-5.6 Terra63.4 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 TerraNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra92.9 |
| Math | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra80.8 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra80.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 54%B 87.4%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 33.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%; GPT-5.6 Terra scored 87.4%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.2%B 63.4%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 9.2SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%; GPT-5.6 Terra scored 63.4%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Terra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | GPT-5.6 Terra$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | GPT-5.6 Terra1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.6 Terra wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | 87.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 1581 | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 47.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 54.1% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | 31.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 23.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 53.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 86.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 51.0% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 88% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.6 Terra wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | 87.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | 63.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 76.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 53.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| deepSweSource | — | 69.6% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 55.8% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 64.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 55.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 92.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 41.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | -0.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 45.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 85.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 32.7% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 71.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.6 Terra?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.6 Terra 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 coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.4 versus 54.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 87.4 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.