Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 64.0
- Supported · #12/152
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 58.6
- Estimated · #29/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.45 versus 66.39, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 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 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
21 Gemini 3.7 Flash only
1 Shared
11 Gemini 3 Pro only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- 21
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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
Directional only- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 62.8
- Supported · #14/151
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 59.9
- Estimated · #22/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 69.8
- Supported · #13/183
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 64.8
- Estimated · #25/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 82.7
- #9/48
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 74.2
- #17/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 77.2
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 36.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 55.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 86.1
- #38/122
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Gemini 3 Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 64.0Supported · #12/152 | 58.6Estimated · #29/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 62.8Supported · #14/151 | 59.9Estimated · #22/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 69.8Supported · #13/183 | 64.8Estimated · #25/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 82.7#9/48 | 74.2#17/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 77.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 36.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 55.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 86.1#38/122 | 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.
CharXiv
Multimodal
Gemini 3.7 Flash: 88.7%Gemini 3 Pro: 81.4%Normalized gap 7.3Gemini 3.7 Flash source Gemini 3 Pro 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.00262
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- $0.04875
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.0675
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.56
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.7 FlashGemini 3 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3 Pro
2M
API model ID
Gemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationGemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGemini 3 Pro
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash API documentationGemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Gemini App - Spark, Gemini Enterprise App, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Google Antigravity
Google DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash model cardGemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Gemini 3 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
Gemini 3 Pro
2025-11-18
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Google as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.45 versus 66.39, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.04875 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0675 vs $0.56.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).
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 evidence33 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Gemini 3.7 Flash14.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.7 Flash77.5%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro63.23%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro11.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Gemini 3.7 Flash43.6%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 3.7 Flash65.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 3.7 Flash20.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.7 Flash80.8%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro14.30%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE-Verified
Gemini 3.7 Flash53.6%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Gemini 3.7 Flash82.1%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Gemini 3.7 Flash87.1%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Gemini 3.7 Flash43.5%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.7 Flash93.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.7 Flash90.1%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%SourceGemini 3 Pro81.4%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash leads this result
LVBench
Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro81%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro87.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro72.7%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Gemini 3.7 Flash—Gemini 3 Pro88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 68.45 versus 66.39, 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 3.7 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 62.8 to 59.9. Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 64 to 58.6. Gemini 3 Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash and $0.008 on Gemini 3 Pro; repository review costs $0.04875 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0675 and $0.56. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.