Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Google logo
Model A
Gemini 3 Flash

Google

62.28/100

Supported · Public rank #51

90% interval 48.875.7

Gemini 3 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro

Updated September 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Google logo
Model B
Gemini 3 Pro

Google

66.5/100

Supported · Public rank #33

90% interval 56.376.7

Decision reading

Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 66.5 versus 62.28, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

5 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

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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 Flash

    Gemini 3 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 Flash

    Gemini 3 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 Flash

    Gemini 3 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.

Shared results
5
Gemini 3 Flash only
6
Gemini 3 Pro only
7
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.

Agentic

Directional only
Gemini 3 Flash
34.0
Supported · #135/153
Gemini 3 Pro
58.6
Estimated · #26/153
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Gemini 3 Flash
41.6
Supported · #109/152
Gemini 3 Pro
60.0
Estimated · #22/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Gemini 3 Flash
56.9
Supported · #45/183
Gemini 3 Pro
64.7
Estimated · #25/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Gemini 3 Flash
66.2
#68/123
Gemini 3 Pro
86.1
#39/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
59.0
Unranked · 2 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 Flash
50.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Gemini 3 Pro
55.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
Not ranked
Gemini 3 Pro
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Gemini 3 Flash
75.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Gemini 3 Pro
74.2
#17/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
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.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 4.167%Gemini 3 Pro: 18.750%Normalized gap 14.6Shared source
  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math

    Gemini 3 Flash: 35.640%Gemini 3 Pro: 37.600%Normalized gap 2.0Shared 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 Flash
$0.002
Fits in one request
Gemini 3 Pro
$0.008
Fits in one request

Gemini 3 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3 Flash
$0.034
Fits in one request
Gemini 3 Pro
$0.136
Fits in one request

Gemini 3 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 Flash
$0.05
Fits in one request
Gemini 3 Pro
$0.56
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Gemini 3 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3 Pro

2M

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 3 Flash

$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Gemini 3 Pro

Not published

Documented inputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3 Flash

Not sourced

Gemini 3 Pro

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3 Flash

Non-Reasoning

Gemini 3 Pro

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3 Flash

Proprietary

Gemini 3 Pro

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3 Flash

2025-12-01

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 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 66.5 versus 62.28, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.034 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.05 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 evidence18 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Gemini 3 Flash49.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • Gemini 3 Flash56.63%
    Gemini 3 Pro63.23%

    Gemini 3 Pro leads this result

  • Gemini 3 Flash11.4%
    Gemini 3 Pro11.4%

    Tie

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Gemini 3 Flash53.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash20.20%
    Gemini 3 Pro14.30%

    Gemini 3 Flash leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Gemini 3 Flash85.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Gemini 3 Flash75.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro31.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Gemini 3 Flash87.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Gemini 3 Flash88.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3 Pro

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash35.640%
    Gemini 3 Pro37.600%

    Gemini 3 Pro leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Gemini 3 Flash4.167%
    Gemini 3 Pro18.750%

    Gemini 3 Pro leads this result

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro81%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro87.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro72.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro81.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Gemini 3 Flash
    Gemini 3 Pro88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

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

Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 66.5 versus 62.28, 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 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

Gemini 3 Pro scores higher for coding on the public lane, 60 to 41.6. 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 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

Gemini 3 Pro scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 58.6 to 34. 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 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.002 on Gemini 3 Flash and $0.008 on Gemini 3 Pro; repository review costs $0.034 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.05 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 Flash or Gemini 3 Pro?

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

Related comparisons

Last updated September 14, 2026

Watch Gemini 3 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.