Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Grok Build 0.1
Updated October 2, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 26
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Gemini 3.5 FlashHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
52.3Gemini 3.5 Flash25.2Grok Build 0.1
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
26 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
1 Shared
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 50.7
- Supported · #42/119
- Grok Build 0.1
- 27.8
- Estimated · #87/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 52.3
- Supported · #39/144
- Grok Build 0.1
- 25.2
- Estimated · #106/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 62.8
- #20/27
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 87.8
- #6/49
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 64.0
- Supported · #30/171
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 84.1
- #43/125
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Grok Build 0.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok Build 0.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 50.7Supported · #42/119 | 27.8Estimated · #87/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 52.3Supported · #39/144 | 25.2Estimated · #106/144 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 62.8#20/27 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 87.8#6/49 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 64.0Supported · #30/171 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 84.1#43/125 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.002
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.056
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Grok Build 0.1
- $0.08
- Fits in one request
Grok Build 0.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashGrok Build 0.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Grok Build 0.1
256K
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingGrok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGrok Build 0.1
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Grok Build 0.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Grok Build 0.1
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Grok Build 0.1
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Grok Build 0.1
2026-05-20
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.08.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok Build 0.1?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.3 to 25.2. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 50.7 to 27.8. Grok Build 0.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok Build 0.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.002 on Grok Build 0.1; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.08. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok Build 0.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence27 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash61.85%Grok Build 0.149.15%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%SourceGrok Build 0.1—Not directly comparable
Math
27 public results · 1 shared
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Grok Build 0.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026