Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. 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
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 63.95 versus 55.21, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 16 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.3 to 42.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 50.7 to 33.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
Like-for-like · 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.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 12.8HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 11.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 6.3MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 4.8CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 2.7Each 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.
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 50.7Supported · #42/119 | 33.5Supported · #75/119 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 13 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 52.3Supported · #39/144 | 42.5Supported · #60/144 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 7 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 87.8#6/49 | 67.2#23/49 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads |
| Knowledge | 64.0Supported · #30/171 | 52.4Supported · #61/171 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 8 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Instruction following | 84.1#43/125 | 82.5#48/125 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 62.8#20/27 | 61.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 93.8#4/16 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 62.0#5/7 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 4 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.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Qwen3.6 Plus
1M
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingQwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
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 pricingQwen3.6 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Qwen3.6 Plus
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Qwen3.6 Plus
2026-04-02
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 63.95 versus 55.21, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.3 to 42.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 50.7 to 33.5, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceTie
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
cursorBench31
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Not directly comparable
MRCR 1M
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Blueprint-Bench 2
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Not directly comparable
V*
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
AIME26
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Not directly comparable
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
