Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
88
o1
57
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #7 · o1 unranked
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Knowledge
+17.7 difference
Inst. Following
+15.9 difference
Gemini 3.5 Flash
o1
$1.5 / $9
$15 / $60
284.2 t/s
98 t/s
18.55s
32.29s
1M
200K
Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 88 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.5 Flash. That is roughly 6.7x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o1.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 92.2% and 75.7%.
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 58. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 76.3. Gemini 3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.