Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3.8 Flash

Google

75.37/100

Estimated · Public rank #12

90% interval 63.9–86.9

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro

Updated September 2, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Google logo
Model B
Gemini 3 Pro

Google

67.39/100

Supported · Public rank #32

90% interval 55.2–79.5

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 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.

  • 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 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash

    Gemini 3.8 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

    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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Gemini 3.8 Flash only
12
Gemini 3 Pro only
12
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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
32.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
81.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Not measured
Gemini 3 Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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 3.8 Flash
$0.00262
Fits in one request
Gemini 3 Pro
$0.008
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.8 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.8 Flash
$0.04875
Fits in one request
Gemini 3 Pro
$0.136
Fits in one request

Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 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 3.8 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.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.8 Flash

$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Gemini 3 Pro

Not published

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Reasoning

Gemini 3 Pro

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3.8 Flash

2026-09-02

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
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 evidence24 rows

Agentic

  • Finance Agent v2

    Gemini 3.8 Flash61.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.8 Flash89.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Gemini 3.8 Flash19.10%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Gemini 3.8 Flash59.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro63.23%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro11.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • deepSwe

    Gemini 3.8 Flash73.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Gemini 3.8 Flash89.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro14.30%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro31.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE-Verified

    Gemini 3.8 Flash54.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    Gemini 3.8 Flash86.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)

    Gemini 3.8 Flash88.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)

    Gemini 3.8 Flash56.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro37.600%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro18.750%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Gemini 3.8 Flash86.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Gemini 3.8 Flash87.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro81%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro87.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro72.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro81.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Gemini 3.8 Flash—
    Gemini 3 Pro88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

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 3.8 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

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 3.8 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00263 on Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 2, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.