Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 83.0
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Hy4 preview
Updated August 28, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 75.66, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Gemini 3.6 Flash only
1 Shared
27 Hy4 preview only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 2
- Hy4 preview only
- 27
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- 65.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- 60.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- 66.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Hy4 preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 83.0 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 65.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 60.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 66.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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 3.6 Flash
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- $0.135
- Fits in one request
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.6 FlashHy4 preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Hy4 preview
API model ID
Gemini 3.6 Flash
gemini-3.6-flash
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationHy4 preview
tencent/Hy4-preview
Tencent Hy4 preview model cardCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingHy4 preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Tencent Hy4 preview model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationHy4 preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Hy4 preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideHy4 preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Reasoning
Hy4 preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Hy4 preview
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Hy4 preview
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.6 Flash
2026-07-21
Hy4 preview
2026-08-28
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
- Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 75.66, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- 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
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash83%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview74.1%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview37.1%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview61.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview22.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview32.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BankerToolBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview78.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview55.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
deepSwe
Gemini 3.6 Flash49%SourceHy4 preview64.3%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview58.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview17.5%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview35.6%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview31.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
CritPt
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview16.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Apex
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Gemini 3.6 Flash—Hy4 preview66.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Hy4 preview?
Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 75.66, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Hy4 preview?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Hy4 preview?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Hy4 preview?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Hy4 preview?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 28, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Hy4 preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.