Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
87
Gemini 3 Pro
81
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #6 · Gemini 3 Pro unranked
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Pro only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Reasoning
+43.6 difference
Multimodal
+2.7 difference
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3 Pro
$1.5 / $9
$2 / $12
284.2 t/s
109 t/s
18.55s
32.65s
1M
2M
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Pro only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 2M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 87 to 81. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3.5 Flash's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 74.7 against 31.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 72.1% to 31.1%.
Gemini 3 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash. Gemini 3.5 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Pro 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 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 87 to 81. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 72.1% and 31.1%.
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 74.7 versus 31.1. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.8 versus 81.1. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.