Capability
Unranked
field median 57.7
Not eligible for a public rank
Gemini 3.7 Flash
CurrentReleased Aug 13, 2026ProprietaryReasoning1M contextGoogle DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash model card
Released Aug 13, 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision reading
Gemini 3.7 Flash is tracked, but not publicly ranked yet. The profile exposes 15 sourced benchmark rows and leaves unsupported fields blank until a published record exists.
Data as of August 13, 2026 · How the score is built
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #36. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
15 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
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.
Price
$0.75input / $3.75 output
input median $1
blended $2.25
Speed
Not measured
field median 93 tok/s
Time to first token not measured
Context
1Mtokens
field median 200,000
Maximum output length is tracked separately
How 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.
- Agentic5/5 verified
- Coding3/3 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MathNot measured
- MultilingualNot measured
- Multimodal4/4 verified
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
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-3.7-flashGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentation
- Context window
- 1MGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentation
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- text, image, video, audio, pdfGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentation
- Output modalities
- textGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentation
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Gemini API · Google AI Studio · Google Antigravity · Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform · Gemini Enterprise · Gemini app via SparkGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash launch
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- activeGoogle Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentation
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recordGoogle: Introducing Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
Category 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 #36 of 129Percentile 73rdWeight 22%5 benchmarksVerified | 54.5 | #36 of 129 | 73rd | 22% | 5 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingWeight 20%3 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 20% | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| KnowledgeWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank Not rankedWeight 12%4 benchmarksVerified | 76.8 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
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.
Coding3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main | Score43.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 53.5% | Gap9.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| deepSwe | Score65.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 72.7% | Gap7.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run) | Score85.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 87.9% | Gap2.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic5 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.1 (provider run) | Score85.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 87.9% | Gap2.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 3.0 | Score14.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42.7% | Gap27.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| AutomationBench | Score30.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 31.8% | Gap1.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score47.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 70.6% | Gap22.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Agents' Last Exam | Score26.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 52.4% | Gap26.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDM-MRCR v2 128K averageGDM-MRCR v2 8-needle, 128K average | Score97% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.7 Flash · 97% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)BioMysteryBench Human Solvable | Score87.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.1% | Gap3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human Difficult | Score43.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 49.4% | Gap5.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Multimodal4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score88.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 93.5% | Gap4.8 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate without tools | Score34.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 83.4% | Gap49.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without tools | Score84.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 88.9% | Gap4.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LVBench | Score85.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.7 Flash · 85.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
December 2025
Gemini 3 FlashScore 59.6 · $0.5 / $3
May 19, 2026
Gemini 3.5 FlashScore 64.4 · $1.5 / $9
Jul 21, 2026
Gemini 3.6 FlashScore 75.3 · $1.5 / $7.5
Aug 13, 2026 · you are here
Gemini 3.7 FlashNot publicly ranked · $0.75 / $3.75
Base entry
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.
We track Gemini 3.7 Flash, but the public leaderboard excludes this profile until enough non-generated benchmark coverage is available. Only published rows appear above.
Gemini 3.7 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.
Available as the stable `gemini-3.7-flash` model through the Gemini API and Google AI Studio, and through Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini Enterprise, and Gemini Spark. Google documents text, image, video, audio, and PDF input; text output; a 1,048,576-token input limit; and a 65,536-token output limit.
Its explicit predecessor is Gemini 3.6 Flash. 15 of 431 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #36. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Radar
Full release historyGemini 3.7 Flash release history
Gemini 3.7 Flash released
Google · Model release
Source confirmed
Frequently asked questions
How does Gemini 3.7 Flash perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has 15 source-displayable benchmark rows, but it does not qualify for a public overall rank. The available rows remain visible by category without being converted into a site-wide score. Missing evidence stays blank instead of being estimated from an earlier model.
Is Gemini 3.7 Flash good for knowledge and understanding?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, 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 3.7 Flash good for coding and programming?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, 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 3.7 Flash good for reasoning and logic?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, 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 3.7 Flash good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Gemini 3.7 Flash ranks #36 out of 129 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 54.5/100. 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 3.7 Flash good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multimodal and grounded tasks, 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.
Does Gemini 3.7 Flash have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Gemini 3.7 Flash currently has 16 source-displayable rows across 431 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 3.7 Flash?
Gemini 3.7 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.
Last updated August 13, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Watch Gemini 3.7 Flash in the weekly brief
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.