Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.75/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #33 (Estimated); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash and Laguna S 2.1 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 43 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash; 3 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
3
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
43
Laguna S 2.1 only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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 and Laguna S 2.1 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 45.0x 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 scores and score margins for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Laguna S 2.1
CategoryGemini 3.5 FlashΔLaguna S 2.1
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash77.2Margin← 7.0Laguna S 2.170.2
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash53.9Margin→ 5.5Laguna S 2.159.4
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash74.7MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash47.2MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MathGemini 3.5 Flash32.9MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash83.8MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.5 Flash76.3MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3.5 FlashB · Laguna S 2.1

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 76.2%B 70.2%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 76.2%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 55.1%B 59.4%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 4.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 55.1%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.5 Flash1MLaguna S 2.11MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%70.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MCP AtlasSource 83.6%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 56.5%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 57.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1349—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.3%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 42.4%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 37.5%—Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 47.1%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 42.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 50.1%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 40.9%—Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingLaguna S 2.1 wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%70.2%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.1%59.4%Laguna S 2.1 leads
SciCodeSource 53.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 48.68%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 49.8%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 70.1%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.5%Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
MRCRv2Source 77.3%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource 26.6%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 72.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 13.1%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 50.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource 92.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.7%—Not comparable
HLESource 40.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 51.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 60.7%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.2%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 41.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 22.7%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.583%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
CharXivSource 84.2%—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 83.6%—Not comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 33.6%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 84.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1285—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLaguna S 2.1Result
IFBenchSource 76.3%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 76.3%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?

Gemini 3.5 Flash and Laguna S 2.1 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 or Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 53.9. 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 or Laguna S 2.1?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 70.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 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.