Gemini 3.5 Flash released
Google · Model release
Source confirmed
Data as of October 2, 2026 · How the score is built
Superseded.Google has newer models in this line:Gemini 3.6 Flash
SupersededProprietaryReasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Decision readingGemini 3.5 Flash scores 64 out of 100 and ranks #41 of 212. This profile shows 27 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #6. API pricing is $1.5 input and $9 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.15.
Released May 19, 2026 — see all recent releases
Gemini 3.5 Flash will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
64/100
field median 52.2#41 of 212 ranked models
Public
#41of 212
Verified #21 of 74
Price
$1.50input / $9 output
input median $0.95cached $0.15 · batch + cache $0.075 · blended $5.25
Speed
200tok/s
field median 89 tok/sFirst token 16.51 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Strongest published evidence
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #6. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Validate before choosing
27 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #42.
Source-linked · 27 displayable benchmark rows
Follow model changesCategory score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #42 of 119Percentile 65thWeight 22%8 benchmarksVerified | 50.7 | 8 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #39 of 144Percentile 73rdWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified | 52.3 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank #20 of 27Percentile 27thWeight 17%3 benchmarksVerified | 62.8 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #6 of 49Percentile 90thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 87.8 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank #30 of 171Percentile 83rdWeight 12%4 benchmarksMixed sources | 64.0 | 4 benchmarks | Mixed sources | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 55.1 | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
27 of 645 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic8/8 verified
- Coding7/7 verified
- Reasoning3/3 verified
- Multimodal3/3 verified
- Knowledge3/4 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- Math2/2 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Gemini 3.5 Flash category percentile values
- Agentic65th percentile
- Coding73rd percentile
- Reasoning27th percentile
- Multimodal90th percentile
- Knowledge83rd percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#42/119
- Coding#39/144
- Reasoning#20/27
- Multimodal#6/49
- Knowledge#30/171
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score55.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap34.8 behind | Weight26% ref. weight | |
| CursorBench 3.2 | Score48.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 73.4% | Gap24.6 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score87.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap2.9 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score76.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap16.6 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score48.68% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 91.90% | Gap43.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| cursorBench31 | Score49.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 70.6% | Gap20.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score78.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap18.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
Agentic8 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score76.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap16.6 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score78.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap7.7 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | |
| MCP Atlas | Score83.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap4.5 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score74.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap13.1 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | |
| Toolathlon | Score56.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 75.6% | Gap19.1 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | |
| Finance Agent v2 | Score57.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 65.4% | Gap7.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score61.85% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap11.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| ResearchClawBench | Score18.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1% | Gap3.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Reasoning3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score72.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95% | Gap22.9 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | |
| MRCRv2 | Score77.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.6% | Gap16.3 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | |
| MRCR 1M | Score26.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 83.5% | Gap56.9 behind | WeightDisplay only |
Multimodal3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score83.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 40% | |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score84.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap9.3 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Score33.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 38.6% | Gap5 behind | WeightDisplay only |
Knowledge4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score40.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap24.8 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score89.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap2.9 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score92.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap2.8 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score92.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap3.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
Math2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score38.966% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89.000% | Gap50 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score14.583% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 97.600% | Gap83 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 27 rowsWhat it costs to get this score
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
Current modelExplore all models
Gemini 3.5 Flash · 64.0 score · $5.25 blended per million tokens
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Base entry
Gemini 3.5 Flash CyberRadar
Full release historyGemini 3.5 Flash release history
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Gemini 3.5 Flash in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
Radar
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- gemini-3.5-flashGoogle Gemini API pricing
- Context window
- 1MGoogle Gemini API pricing
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Not sourced yet
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Superseded
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Published at $0.15 per million cached input tokensGoogle Gemini API pricing
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #41 of 212 on the public leaderboard with a score of 63.95/100. Its source-verified position is #21 of 74.
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Gemini 3.5 Flash sits in the Gemini 3.5 Flash family with Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. Its explicit predecessor is Gemini 3 Flash. 27 of 645 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #6, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #42. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Last updated October 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does Gemini 3.5 Flash perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #41 out of 212 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 63.95/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 27 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for knowledge and understanding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #30 out of 171 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 64/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for coding and programming?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #39 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 52.3/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for mathematics?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for reasoning and logic?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #20 out of 27 eligible models for reasoning and logic, with a public category score of 62.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #42 out of 119 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 50.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #6 out of 49 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 87.8/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash belongs to the Gemini 3.5 Flash family. Related tracked variants include Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Gemini 3.5 Flash have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Gemini 3.5 Flash currently has 49 source-displayable rows across 645 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Gemini 3.5 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.