Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 51.7
- Supported · #43/152
- Laguna XS 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
Updated September 10, 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.
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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Laguna XS 2.1
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Laguna XS 2.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
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
2 Laguna XS 2.1 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 24
- Laguna XS 2.1 only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 57.5
- Supported · #33/151
- Laguna XS 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 59.4
- #16/20
- Laguna XS 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 67.8
- Supported · #19/183
- Laguna XS 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 XS 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 XS 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #6/48
- Laguna XS 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
- #36/123
- Laguna XS 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Laguna XS 2.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 51.7Supported · #43/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 57.5Supported · #33/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 59.4#16/20 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 67.8Supported · #19/183 | 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 | 86.9#6/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 86.9#36/123 | 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 XS 2.1: 37.5%Normalized gap 38.7Gemini 3.5 Flash source Laguna XS 2.1 sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%Laguna XS 2.1: 47.6%Normalized gap 7.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
- $0.0002
- Fits in one request
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
- $0.0056
- Fits in one request
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
- $0.014
- Fits in one request
Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Laguna XS 2.1
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingLaguna XS 2.1
poolside/Laguna-XS-2.1
Poolside Laguna XS 2.1 launch postCached-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 XS 2.1
$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens
Poolside Laguna XS 2.1 launch postDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna XS 2.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna XS 2.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Laguna XS 2.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Laguna XS 2.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Laguna XS 2.1
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Laguna XS 2.1
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Laguna XS 2.1
2026-07-02
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 $0.014.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (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 evidence29 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLaguna XS 2.137.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLaguna XS 2.137.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceLaguna XS 2.147.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Laguna XS 2.170.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Laguna XS 2.163.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%SourceLaguna XS 2.1—Not directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna XS 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 XS 2.1?
Laguna XS 2.1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna XS 2.1?
Laguna XS 2.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna XS 2.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0002 on Laguna XS 2.1; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.0056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.014. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Laguna XS 2.1?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Laguna XS 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.