Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 50.6
- Supported · #61/151
- Laguna S 2.1
- 48.2
- Estimated · #77/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
24 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
3 Shared
3 Laguna S 2.1 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 24
- Laguna S 2.1 only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 57.7
- Supported · #34/183
- Laguna S 2.1
- 47.8
- Estimated · #87/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 60.3
- #17/22
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 68.5
- Supported · #19/181
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 85.9
- #6/48
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #34/120
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Laguna S 2.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 50.6Supported · #61/151 | 48.2Estimated · #77/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 57.7Supported · #34/183 | 47.8Estimated · #87/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 60.3#17/22 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 68.5Supported · #19/181 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 85.9#6/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 86.9#34/120 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 76.2%Laguna S 2.1: 70.2%Normalized gap 6.0Gemini 3.5 Flash source Laguna S 2.1 sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%Laguna S 2.1: 59.4%Normalized gap 4.3Gemini 3.5 Flash source Laguna S 2.1 source
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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0002
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0056
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Laguna S 2.1
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingLaguna S 2.1
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 pricingLaguna S 2.1
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Laguna S 2.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Laguna S 2.1
2026-07-21
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 $0.0056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.006.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence30 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Laguna S 2.149.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceLaguna S 2.159.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Laguna S 2.178.5%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Laguna S 2.140.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?
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 Laguna S 2.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 57.7 to 47.8. Laguna S 2.1 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 Laguna S 2.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 50.6 to 48.2. Laguna S 2.1 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 Laguna S 2.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0002 on Laguna S 2.1; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.0056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.006. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.