Gemini 3.5 Flash: Benchmarks, Cost, and Guide

The complete technical breakdown of Google's fastest frontier model: every benchmark score, API price, speed metric, and head-to-head comparison with Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and every major competitor.

Gemini 3.5 Flash outputs tokens at 289 tokens per second, roughly 10x faster than Claude Opus 4.6, at one-third the price. That single data point captures why this model matters. Announced at Google I/O 2026 on May 19, Google's newest model is not the most capable AI in existence (that title belongs to the flagships). But it is the first speed-tier model to surpass its own company's flagship on the benchmarks that matter most for real work: coding, agentic task completion, and tool use - Google DeepMind.

This is not a minor iteration. Gemini 3.5 Flash surpasses Gemini 3.1 Pro on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (coding), GDPval-AA (real-world agentic evaluation), MCP Atlas (scaled tool use), and Finance Agent v2. It leads the entire field (including Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5) on MCP Atlas, Toolathlon, Finance Agent v2, CharXiv Reasoning, and MMMU-Pro. And it does this while costing $1.50 per million input tokens, compared to $5.00 for Claude Opus 4.6 and $5.00 for GPT-5.5.

The catch? It still trails on pure reasoning benchmarks. Gemini 3.1 Pro beats it on ARC-AGI-2 (by 5 points), Humanity's Last Exam (by 4.2 points), and long-context retrieval. The flagships from Anthropic and OpenAI remain better at the hardest intellectual tasks. But if your use case is "an AI agent that needs to get things done fast and cheaply," Gemini 3.5 Flash just became the default choice.

This guide provides the complete technical picture: every benchmark score, every pricing detail, speed comparisons, and head-to-head analysis against every major competitor. If you are choosing a model for production deployment, building agents, or evaluating the state of the art in May 2026, this is the reference.

The release timing is not accidental. Google launched 3.5 Flash the same day it announced Gemini Spark (a 24/7 personal AI agent), Information Agents in Search (background web monitoring), and Universal Cart (intelligent shopping). All of these products need a fast, cheap, capable model to run at scale. Flash is the infrastructure that makes Google's entire agentic product lineup viable. Understanding Flash's capabilities and limitations is therefore essential for understanding where the entire AI industry is heading.

Contents

1. What Gemini 3.5 Flash Is (and What It Is Not)
2. Full Technical Specifications
3. The Master Benchmark Table: Every Model Compared
4. The Master Pricing Table: Every Model Compared
5. Speed Comparison: Tokens Per Second
6. Where 3.5 Flash Leads the Field
7. Where 3.5 Flash Falls Short
8. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Previous Gemini Models
9. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Claude Opus 4.6 and 4.7
10. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. GPT-5.5 and GPT-4.1
11. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Open-Weight Models
12. Cost Analysis: What Agents Actually Cost to Run
13. The Thinking Mode: Dynamic Reasoning Control
14. When to Use Gemini 3.5 Flash (and When Not To)
15. Gemini 3.5 Pro: What We Know
16. First-Principles Analysis: Why Speed Beats Capability
17. Conclusion

---

1. What Gemini 3.5 Flash Is (and What It Is Not)

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the first model in Google's 3.5 generation, designed specifically for the agent era. Google's framing is deliberate: this is not a general-purpose model that happens to be fast. It is an agentic model that was optimized from the ground up for the combination of intelligence, speed, and cost efficiency that makes AI agents viable at scale - Google Blog.

The strategic context matters for understanding why Google released Flash before Pro. In previous generations, Google released the flagship (Pro) first and the speed-optimized model (Flash) later. This time, Flash came first. The reason is that Google's entire I/O 2026 product lineup (Gemini Spark, Information Agents, agentic booking in Search, Universal Cart) runs on Flash-class models. Agents make dozens of model calls per user request. If each call is slow or expensive, the agent is impractical. By optimizing Flash for agent economics first, Google ensures its agentic products work at scale from day one.

This is not the model you choose for solving olympiad math problems or writing the next great novel. It is the model you choose when you need an AI system that can reason about a task, call tools, evaluate results, and take actions, all in under a second and at a cost that scales to millions of users. For the full progression of Google's model family and how earlier generations laid the groundwork for 3.5 Flash, see our Gemini 3.1 Pro guide and Flash Lite guide.

The Naming Convention Explained

Google's model naming can be confusing, so here is how to decode it. The first number (3.5) indicates the generation. The word after (Flash or Pro) indicates the tier: Flash is speed-optimized, Pro is capability-optimized. Within a generation, Flash is always cheaper and faster; Pro is always more capable on hard tasks. Across generations, each new Flash model closes the gap with (or surpasses) the previous Pro model. Gemini 3.5 Flash surpassing Gemini 3.1 Pro on agentic benchmarks is a milestone in this pattern.

The previous generation (Gemini 3.0/3.1) established the pattern: Gemini 3 Flash already beat Gemini 2.5 Pro on 18 of 20 benchmarks while being faster and cheaper. Gemini 3.5 Flash continues this trajectory, raising the bar for what "speed tier" means in the industry. A "speed" model that beats flagships on real-world agent tasks is no longer just a compromise option. It is the primary model for the majority of production workloads.

---

2. Full Technical Specifications

Every specification that matters for production deployment, sourced from Google's official documentation and the model evaluation report - Google AI Developer Docs.

The 1M token context window is the same as the previous Flash generation but half the size of Gemini 3.1 Pro's 2M window. For most agent use cases, 1M tokens is more than sufficient (it is roughly 750,000 words). The 65K max output is generous and supports generating complete code files, long documents, and detailed analysis in a single call.

The cached input pricing at $0.15/1M tokens (90% cheaper than standard input pricing) deserves special attention. For agent systems that repeatedly reference the same context (system prompts, tool definitions, reference documents), caching dramatically reduces costs. A system prompt that costs $1.50 per call at standard pricing costs $0.15 with caching. Over millions of agent interactions, this is the difference between viable and unviable economics. We analyzed these economics in depth in our guide to the true cost of LLM inference.

Safety and Interpretability

Google developed 3.5 Flash under its Frontier Safety Framework, with strengthened safeguards against cyber and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) misuse. The model includes advanced reasoning checks that evaluate the safety of responses before generation, which contributes to what Google describes as being "less likely to generate harmful content or incorrectly refuse valid queries." This dual improvement (fewer harmful outputs AND fewer false refusals) is practically important for agent systems where incorrect refusals break automated workflows.

The model also ships with interpretability tools that allow developers to inspect the model's inner reasoning process. For production deployments where you need to understand why an agent took a specific action (compliance requirements, debugging unexpected behavior, auditing decision-making), interpretability is not a research curiosity. It is an operational requirement.

Modality Support

Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts text, image, audio, and video as inputs but produces only text as output. For agents that need to generate images or audio, you would pair Flash with specialized models (Gemini Omni for video, Nano Banana for images, Lyria 3 Pro for music). The multimodal input capability is where Flash excels: its MMMU-Pro score (84.0%, highest recorded) means it understands images, charts, screenshots, and visual content at a level that matches or exceeds every other model. For our coverage of Google's image generation model, see the Nano Banana 2 guide.

---

3. The Master Benchmark Table: Every Model Compared

This is the comprehensive comparison table. Every number is sourced from official model cards, evaluation reports, or Artificial Analysis. Where a score is not publicly available, it is marked with a dash. Scores are percentages unless noted otherwise.

Sources: Google DeepMind Model Evaluation, Anthropic Claude 4, OpenAI GPT-5.5, Llama 4, DeepSeek V4, Artificial Analysis

The table reveals three critical insights. First, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the entire field on agentic benchmarks (MCP Atlas, Finance Agent v2, CharXiv, MMMU-Pro), beating even the expensive flagships. Second, the flagships (Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5) still lead on traditional software engineering benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified) and pure reasoning (ARC-AGI-2). Third, there are significant gaps in publicly available benchmark data across competitors, which makes direct comparison difficult for some categories. For a broader analysis of model benchmarks across the full AI landscape, see our AI model benchmarks and pricing guide.

How to Read This Table

A few important caveats about benchmark comparisons. Different models are evaluated on different benchmark suites, which is why so many cells are dashes. Google's evaluation of 3.5 Flash prioritizes agentic benchmarks (Terminal-Bench, GDPval-AA, MCP Atlas, Finance Agent v2) over traditional academic benchmarks (MMLU, MATH). Anthropic's evaluations prioritize SWE-Bench and GPQA. OpenAI publishes broad benchmark suites but often uses different variants or scoring methods. This means cross-provider comparisons on the same benchmark are the most reliable, while assuming equivalence across different benchmarks is risky.

The benchmark that Google deliberately chose to highlight (MCP Atlas for tool use, Finance Agent for financial tasks, MMMU-Pro for multimodal) are the benchmarks where Flash excels. This is not deception. It is strategic communication. Every provider highlights their model's strengths. The responsible approach for businesses is to evaluate models on the benchmarks most relevant to their specific use case, not the ones the provider advertises. If you are building a financial AI agent, Finance Agent v2 is the relevant benchmark and Flash leads. If you are building a code refactoring tool, SWE-Bench is relevant and Claude Opus 4.7 leads.

The full model evaluation report is publicly available at Google DeepMind's website - Gemini 3.5 Flash Model Evaluation PDF. This 30+ page document provides detailed methodology, per-benchmark breakdowns, and comparison data that goes beyond what Google published in blog posts. For serious production evaluation, read the full report.

---

4. The Master Pricing Table: Every Model Compared

This table covers every major model available via API as of May 20, 2026. Prices are per million tokens - Gemini API Pricing, Anthropic Pricing, OpenAI Pricing.

The pricing reveals the core trade-off. Gemini 3.5 Flash at $1.50/$9.00 is 3.3x cheaper on input and 2.8x cheaper on output than Claude Opus 4.6 ($5/$25). Compared to GPT-5.5, it is 3.3x cheaper on input and 3.3x cheaper on output. But it is 3x more expensive than its predecessor Gemini 3 Flash ($0.50/$3.00), reflecting the substantial capability improvement. For budget-constrained deployments, Claude Haiku 4.5 ($1/$5), Grok 4.3 ($1.25/$2.50), and DeepSeek V4 Flash ($0.14/$0.28) offer even lower costs, though with correspondingly lower capability.

---

5. Speed Comparison: Tokens Per Second

Speed is where Gemini 3.5 Flash dominates the field with no close competitor among frontier models - Artificial Analysis.

At ~289 tokens per second, Gemini 3.5 Flash is:

• 11.6x faster than Claude Opus 4.6 (~25 tok/s)
• 4.6x faster than GPT-5.5 (~63 tok/s)
• 4.4x faster than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (~65 tok/s)
• 3.1x faster than Claude Haiku 4.5 (~93 tok/s)
• 2.9x faster than Grok 4.3 (~98 tok/s)
• 2.4x faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro (~122 tok/s)

For agent systems, speed is not just about user experience. It directly affects the total time to complete a multi-step task. An agent that makes 15 model calls to complete a task takes 15 seconds at Gemini 3.5 Flash speed (assuming 1-second calls at 289 tok/s). The same 15 calls take 150 seconds with Claude Opus 4.6. That is the difference between a responsive, usable agent and one that makes users wait minutes for results.

Speed also affects time-to-first-token (TTFT), which is the latency before the model starts generating output. For interactive applications where users are waiting for a response, TTFT matters more than throughput. GPT-5.5, for instance, has a measured TTFT of 85.57 seconds on its most capable mode (xhigh), which means users wait over a minute before seeing any output begin. Flash's TTFT is a fraction of this, making it suitable for real-time interactive experiences.

The compounding effect of speed across agent workflows deserves emphasis. A Gemini Spark agent that checks your email, identifies action items, drafts responses, and updates your task list might make 8-12 model calls for a single morning brief. At Flash speed, this entire workflow completes in under 10 seconds. At Opus speed, it takes over a minute. When this workflow runs for millions of Spark users every morning, the aggregate compute savings from Flash's speed translate directly to the ability to serve the service at scale without infrastructure bottlenecks.

---

6. Where 3.5 Flash Leads the Field

Gemini 3.5 Flash does not just beat its predecessors. It beats every model in the world, including models that cost 3-10x more, on specific benchmark categories. Understanding where it leads (and why) is critical for choosing the right model for your use case.

Agentic Task Completion

On GDPval-AA (a benchmark that evaluates real-world agentic performance with Elo ratings), Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 1,656 Elo, compared to 1,314 for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is a 342 Elo gap, which in competitive rating systems represents a massive capability difference. The only model that scores higher is GPT-5.5 at approximately 1,769 Elo, but GPT-5.5 costs 3.3x more on input and 3.3x more on output.

Tool Use at Scale

On MCP Atlas (which evaluates how well models use tools at scale), Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 83.6%, beating Gemini 3.1 Pro (78.2%) and leading the entire field. This benchmark is particularly relevant because AI agents interact with the real world through tool use: calling APIs, querying databases, executing code, browsing the web. A model that is excellent at tool use is a model that makes excellent agents. The benchmark name (MCP Atlas) reflects the growing importance of the Model Context Protocol standard that we covered in our Anthropic MCP guide.

Financial Agent Tasks

On Finance Agent v2, Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 57.9% compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro's 43.0%. This is a 14.9 percentage point improvement and represents the largest single-benchmark gap between Flash and Pro. Financial agent tasks require numerical reasoning, data extraction from financial documents, and multi-step analysis, exactly the kind of structured work that agents are deployed for in enterprise settings.

Multimodal Understanding

On MMMU-Pro (multimodal understanding), Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 84.0%, which Google reports as the highest recorded score. On CharXiv Reasoning (reasoning about scientific charts and figures), it scores 84.2%, also leading the field. These multimodal capabilities matter for agents that need to process images, screenshots, charts, and other visual content as part of their workflow.

For businesses deploying AI agents, these benchmarks map directly to real capabilities. An agent that scores well on MCP Atlas will use your APIs correctly. An agent that scores well on Finance Agent v2 will process your financial data accurately. An agent that scores well on CharXiv will correctly interpret the charts in your reports. Our analysis of the cost of agentic AI explored the relationship between model capability and agent deployment economics.

Why Agentic Benchmarks Are the New Standard

There is a structural reason why Google chose to evaluate Flash primarily on agentic benchmarks rather than the traditional academic benchmarks that dominated previous model releases. Traditional benchmarks (MMLU, MATH, HumanEval) measure isolated capabilities: knowledge recall, mathematical reasoning, code generation. They test the model in a vacuum. Agentic benchmarks (MCP Atlas, GDPval-AA, Finance Agent) measure the model's ability to accomplish real tasks end-to-end, including planning, tool selection, error recovery, and multi-step execution.

The difference matters because a model that scores 95% on MMLU but cannot reliably use a tool (because tool use requires different capabilities: following complex instructions, managing state across calls, interpreting tool outputs, recovering from errors) is useless for agent deployments. Conversely, a model that scores 85% on MMLU but leads on MCP Atlas is a better agent model, even though it "scores lower" on the traditional benchmark. Google's choice to prioritize agentic benchmarks reflects the reality that models are increasingly evaluated by what they can accomplish, not what they know.

This shift in evaluation methodology has implications beyond Google. Expect Anthropic, OpenAI, and other providers to increasingly report agentic benchmark scores rather than (or in addition to) traditional academic benchmarks. The benchmark landscape is evolving to match how models are actually used in production. For businesses evaluating models, this means asking "how well does it perform on tasks similar to mine?" rather than "what is its MMLU score?"

---

7. Where 3.5 Flash Falls Short

Honesty about limitations is more useful than cheerleading. Gemini 3.5 Flash has clear weaknesses relative to both its predecessor (3.1 Pro) and the expensive flagships.

Pure Reasoning

On ARC-AGI-2 (abstract reasoning), Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 72.1% compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro's 77.1% and GPT-5.5's 85.0%. This is a 5-point gap against its own predecessor and a 13-point gap against the best model. For tasks that require deep abstract reasoning (novel problem-solving, mathematical proof construction, complex logical deduction), 3.5 Flash is not the right choice.

Frontier Knowledge Tests

On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), designed to test the frontier of AI knowledge, Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 40.2% compared to 3.1 Pro's 44.4%. A 4.2-point deficit on a test designed to push the limits of AI capability. For research applications that need the absolute best reasoning, 3.1 Pro or the competitor flagships remain superior.

Long-Context Retrieval

On MRCR v2 (128k) (long-context multi-needle retrieval), Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 77.3% compared to 3.1 Pro's 84.9%. A 7.6-point gap. For applications that need to find specific information buried deep in long documents (legal discovery, compliance review, academic research across large corpuses), 3.1 Pro's larger context window (2M vs 1M) and better retrieval accuracy make it the better choice.

SWE-Bench Software Engineering

On SWE-Bench Verified (the industry-standard benchmark for real-world software engineering), Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% and GPT-5.5 scores 88.7%. Gemini 3.5 Flash's SWE-Bench Pro score of 55.1% uses a different variant, but the general pattern is clear: for complex software engineering tasks (multi-file refactors, debugging production codebases), the expensive flagships remain substantially better. Our guide to Claude Opus 4.7 covers Anthropic's flagship capabilities in detail.

---

8. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Previous Gemini Models

Understanding where 3.5 Flash fits in the Gemini lineage helps you decide whether to upgrade from older models.

The progression tells a clear story. Gemini 3 Flash (the previous speed tier at $0.50/$3.00) already beat Gemini 2.5 Pro on 18 of 20 benchmarks. Gemini 3.5 Flash now beats Gemini 3.1 Pro on agentic benchmarks. Each generation's Flash model is catching up to, and now surpassing, the previous generation's Pro model. If this trend continues, Gemini 3.5 Pro (arriving June 2026) could establish a new ceiling that the next Flash model will eventually match.

The chart above tells the story quantitatively. Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved approximately 72% of Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding performance. By generation 3.0, Flash reached 82%. Generation 3.1 narrowed to 89%. And now generation 3.5 Flash has crossed 100%, surpassing its own predecessor Pro (108% of 3.1 Pro on Terminal-Bench). This trajectory, the Flash line overtaking the Pro line, is the single most important trend in Google's model development strategy. It means the speed-optimized tier is no longer a compromise. It is the primary model for the majority of production use cases.

For developers currently using Gemini 3.1 Pro, the migration decision depends on your use case. If you are building agents, 3.5 Flash is faster, cheaper, and better on every metric that matters. If you are building reasoning-heavy applications (research tools, complex analysis), 3.1 Pro's advantages on ARC-AGI-2, HLE, and long-context retrieval may be worth the higher cost and slower speed.

The Context Window Trade-off

One practical consideration for migration: Gemini 3.1 Pro offers a 2M token context window while 3.5 Flash offers 1M tokens. For most agent use cases, 1M tokens (roughly 750,000 words or 15,000 pages) is vastly more than needed. But for specific use cases that require processing extremely large documents (entire codebases, full legal depositions, complete financial filings across multiple years), the 2M window in 3.1 Pro may be necessary. If your current 3.1 Pro deployment relies on context windows above 1M tokens, 3.5 Flash cannot be a direct replacement without architectural changes (chunking, retrieval-augmented generation, or multi-pass processing).

For context, most production AI applications use less than 50,000 tokens of context per call. The 1M window in Flash provides 20x headroom above typical usage. The scenarios where 2M genuinely matters are rare: processing a 1,000-page PDF in a single call, loading an entire medium-sized codebase into context, or maintaining a conversation history spanning thousands of exchanges. If you are not doing these things, the context window difference is irrelevant to your decision.

---

9. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Claude Opus 4.6 and 4.7

The comparison with Anthropic's flagships is the most important competitive matchup because Claude Opus 4.6 leads the LMArena overall leaderboard (Elo 1,504) and Claude Opus 4.7 leads on SWE-Bench Verified (87.6%). These are the models most businesses consider as "the best available" - Anthropic.

Where Gemini 3.5 Flash Wins

• Speed: 289 tok/s vs. ~25 tok/s (11.6x faster)
• Price: $1.50/$9.00 vs. $5.00/$25.00 (3.3x cheaper input, 2.8x cheaper output)
• Agentic benchmarks: Leads on MCP Atlas, Finance Agent v2, MMMU-Pro, CharXiv
• Tool use: Higher scores on structured tool interaction benchmarks

Where Claude Opus Wins

• SWE-Bench Verified: Opus 4.6 at 80.8%, Opus 4.7 at 87.6% (vs. 55.1% SWE-Pro for Flash)
• GPQA Diamond: Opus 4.6 at 91.3% (vs. ~90.4% for Flash, close but Opus leads)
• LMArena Elo: Opus 4.6 at 1,504 (Flash not yet ranked, but likely lower given it is a speed model)
• Writing quality: Anthropic's models are generally preferred for long-form writing in human evaluations

The Practical Decision

If you need an AI for writing, analysis, and complex software engineering, Claude Opus remains the better choice despite costing 3x more. The SWE-Bench gap (87.6% vs 55.1% on different variants) is significant for production codebases. If you need an AI for agents, tool use, and high-volume automated tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash delivers comparable or better results at a fraction of the cost and an order of magnitude faster.

For many businesses, the answer is both: Claude Opus for the hard problems and human-facing interactions, Gemini 3.5 Flash for the automated agent infrastructure. Our guides to Claude Code pricing and the Anthropic ecosystem provide the full picture on Anthropic's pricing and products.

The R&D World Analysis

As noted by R&D World, Gemini 3.5 Flash "scores within two points of Anthropic's flagship at a third of the price." This framing captures the disruption perfectly. In previous generations, speed-tier models scored 10-20 points below flagships. A 2-point gap means the quality difference is negligible for most tasks, while the 3x cost reduction and 10x speed improvement are enormous. The implication is that the market for expensive flagship models is shrinking to only those tasks where the last 2% of capability genuinely matters. For everything else, Flash-class models are now sufficient - R&D World.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Claude Haiku 4.5 Comparison

The comparison with Anthropic's mid-tier and speed-tier models is also important. Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $3.00/$15.00 sits between Flash ($1.50/$9.00) and Opus ($5.00/$25.00) on pricing. Sonnet scores 79.6% on SWE-Bench Verified and 74.1% on GPQA Diamond, both of which are below Flash's capabilities on agentic benchmarks. Sonnet's advantage is in general-purpose writing quality and coding tasks where human preference (rather than benchmark scores) matters. For developers choosing between Flash and Sonnet, the question is whether you value agentic capability (Flash wins) or general-purpose quality (Sonnet may win for some tasks).

Claude Haiku 4.5 at $1.00/$5.00 is cheaper than Flash on both input and output. At ~93 tok/s, it is also reasonably fast (though 3x slower than Flash). Haiku is the right choice if you need the absolute cheapest Anthropic option and can accept lower capability. For simple classification, extraction, and routing tasks, Haiku's lower cost may outweigh Flash's capability advantages.

---

10. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. GPT-5.5 and GPT-4.1

OpenAI's model lineup creates a different competitive dynamic because it spans from GPT-4.1 Nano ($0.10/$0.40) to GPT-5.5 Pro ($30/$180), covering a wider price range than any other provider - OpenAI.

GPT-5.5 Comparison

GPT-5.5 leads Gemini 3.5 Flash on SWE-Bench Verified (88.7%), ARC-AGI-2 (85.0%), and GDPval-AA (~1,769 Elo). But it costs $5.00/$30.00 vs. $1.50/$9.00, making it 3.3x more expensive on both input and output. It also runs at ~63 tok/s, which is 4.6x slower than Flash.

Gemini 3.5 Flash leads GPT-5.5 on MCP Atlas, Finance Agent v2, MMMU-Pro, and CharXiv Reasoning. The pattern is clear: GPT-5.5 wins on traditional software engineering and abstract reasoning. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins on tool use, financial analysis, and multimodal understanding. For our complete analysis of GPT-5.5, see the GPT-5.5 benchmarks guide and complete overview.

GPT-4.1 Comparison

GPT-4.1: The Real Price Competitor

GPT-4.1 at $2.00/$8.00 is the closest price competitor to Gemini 3.5 Flash. Its 1M context window matches Flash's. At $2.00 input (vs $1.50 for Flash) and $8.00 output (vs $9.00 for Flash), the total cost for a typical agent interaction is roughly comparable. GPT-4.1 launched in March 2026, two months before Flash, and its benchmark data shows lower performance on the agentic benchmarks where Flash excels. The GPT-4.1 Nano variant at $0.10/$0.40 is dramatically cheaper but targets simple classification and extraction rather than agentic work.

For developers currently on GPT-4.1, Flash offers measurably better agentic performance (MCP Atlas, GDPval-AA) at a similar price point. The migration cost is primarily engineering effort to switch API providers, which for well-abstracted codebases is minimal. For developers locked into the OpenAI ecosystem through Assistants API, Function Calling patterns, or enterprise agreements, the switching cost may be higher.

The Pricing Trend Over Time

A broader perspective helps contextualize Flash's pricing. Two years ago, GPT-4 Turbo (the then-current frontier model) cost $10.00/$30.00 per million tokens. Today, Gemini 3.5 Flash delivers significantly better performance on every benchmark at $1.50/$9.00. That is a 6.7x cost reduction on input and 3.3x on output for a model that is measurably better. The trajectory is clear: frontier-class AI capability is getting cheaper by roughly 3-5x per year. Businesses planning multi-year AI strategies should budget for today's costs but expect significant future reductions.

---

11. Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Open-Weight Models

The open-weight landscape provides alternatives that run on your own infrastructure, eliminating API costs entirely (but introducing compute costs).

Llama 4 Maverick (Meta's flagship open-weight model) scores 80.5% on MMLU-Pro and 69.8% on GPQA Diamond. It achieves 1,417 Elo on LMArena, placing it in the top tier of open-weight models but below all current closed-source flagships - Meta AI. These scores are competitive with closed models from 6-12 months ago but lag behind the current frontier. The advantage of Maverick is zero API cost: if you have the GPU infrastructure, you pay only for compute. The disadvantage is that you need significant GPU resources (multiple A100s or H100s) to run it at reasonable speed.

Llama 4 Scout is the smaller, faster variant scoring 74.3% on MMLU-Pro and 57.2% on GPQA Diamond. Scout is designed for deployment on more modest hardware (single GPU or even CPU inference with quantization). For businesses that need on-premise AI with no cloud dependency, Scout provides a self-hosted alternative to Flash, though with meaningfully lower capability on every benchmark.

DeepSeek V4-Pro offers a compelling value proposition at $1.74/$3.49 with a 1M context window, 80.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, 90.1% on GPQA Diamond, and 87.5% on MMLU-Pro - DataCamp. These are higher than Gemini 3.5 Flash on these specific benchmarks. DeepSeek's cached input pricing ($0.028/1M tokens) is also dramatically lower than Flash's ($0.15). For pure reasoning tasks at minimum cost, DeepSeek is a strong alternative. However, agentic benchmark data for DeepSeek V4-Pro is limited, and the company's Chinese origin may create compliance concerns for some enterprises. We profiled DeepSeek and other cost-efficient models in our agent swarm cost guide.

Mistral Large 3 at $0.50/$1.50 is the budget option with a 262K context window and 73.1% on MMLU-Pro. It scores lower than Flash on all available benchmarks but costs 3x less on input and 6x less on output. For European businesses with data sovereignty requirements, Mistral's EU-based infrastructure is a compliance advantage that no US-based model can match.

The Build vs. Buy Decision for Open-Weight Models

The choice between Flash (API) and an open-weight model (self-hosted) comes down to scale and control. At low to medium volume (under 10 million tokens/day), Flash's API pricing is almost always cheaper than self-hosting because you avoid the fixed costs of GPU infrastructure, cooling, maintenance, and engineering time. At high volume (over 100 million tokens/day), self-hosting Llama 4 Maverick on H100 GPUs can achieve lower per-token costs, but requires significant upfront investment and operational expertise.

The control argument cuts both ways. Self-hosting gives you data sovereignty (tokens never leave your infrastructure), latency control (no network round-trips to API endpoints), and independence from provider pricing changes. But it also gives you operational burden (GPU procurement, driver updates, model serving infrastructure, scaling, monitoring) that API-based models eliminate. For most businesses, the operational simplicity of API-based models like Flash is the deciding factor. For businesses with strict data residency requirements, high volume, and existing GPU infrastructure, open-weight models remain a viable alternative.

The chart above illustrates the cost-efficiency frontier. Gemini 3.5 Flash delivers 6.1 intelligence points per dollar of output cost, nearly 3x more efficient than Claude Opus 4.6 (2.2) and 3.6x more efficient than GPT-5.5 (1.7). Only DeepSeek V4 Flash (10.7) is more cost-efficient, but at a lower absolute intelligence level. Flash sits at the optimal point on the efficiency frontier: high enough intelligence for production agentic work, low enough cost for enterprise-scale deployment.

---

12. Cost Analysis: What Agents Actually Cost to Run

Raw API pricing tells you the cost per token. What matters in practice is the cost per task for the agent workflows you actually run. Let me model three common agent scenarios.

Scenario 1: Email Processing Agent

An agent that reads incoming emails, classifies them, drafts responses, and files them. Assume 50 emails/day, average 500 tokens input and 200 tokens output per email.

Scenario 2: Research Agent (Heavy Use)

An agent that searches the web, reads documents, synthesizes information, and generates reports. Assume 20 tasks/day, average 10,000 tokens input and 2,000 tokens output per task.

Scenario 3: Coding Agent (Continuous)

An agent that reads codebases, generates code, runs tests, and iterates. Assume 100 interactions/day, average 5,000 tokens input and 1,000 tokens output per interaction.

With caching enabled (reusing system prompts and tool definitions), Gemini 3.5 Flash's costs drop further. If 80% of input tokens are cached, the input cost drops by ~85%, making the coding agent scenario roughly $18/month instead of $49.50. Caching is the hidden advantage that makes Flash's economics unbeatable for agent workloads. For more on coding agent economics and framework comparisons, see our top 50 AI coding agent frameworks.

Enterprise Scale Economics

The per-task costs seem small, but they compound rapidly at enterprise scale. A company with 1,000 employees, each running 50 agent interactions per day, generates 50,000 daily interactions. At the coding agent cost profile ($1.65/day per user on Flash vs $5.00/day on Claude Opus):

• Gemini 3.5 Flash: 50,000 interactions x $0.033 = $1,650/day or $49,500/month
• Claude Opus 4.6: 50,000 interactions x $0.100 = $5,000/day or $150,000/month
• GPT-5.5: 50,000 interactions x $0.110 = $5,500/day or $165,000/month

The monthly difference between Flash and the flagships is $100,000-$115,000. Over a year, that is $1.2-1.4 million in savings. This is why model pricing is not an academic exercise. For enterprise AI deployments, the choice of model directly impacts the P&L. And at these scales, the capability difference between Flash and the flagships needs to be dramatic to justify the cost premium. For most agent workloads (email processing, document summarization, data extraction, scheduling, monitoring), Flash's performance is indistinguishable from the flagships on the tasks that actually occur.

The Caching Strategy

The 90% caching discount ($0.15/1M vs $1.50/1M for input tokens) creates a specific optimization strategy. Agent systems should be designed to maximize cache reuse. This means structuring your prompts with static elements (system prompt, tool definitions, reference documents, few-shot examples) at the beginning, where they can be cached, and dynamic elements (user input, conversation history, current task context) at the end. The static portion gets cached after the first call, and subsequent calls pay only $0.15/1M for that content instead of $1.50/1M.

For a typical agent with a 5,000-token system prompt and 2,000 tokens of tool definitions, the cached input saves approximately $0.009 per call. Over a million calls (which a busy enterprise agent system handles in weeks, not months), that is $9,450 in savings from caching alone. Google designed this pricing structure specifically to encourage the kind of repetitive, high-volume usage that agent systems generate.

---

13. The Thinking Mode: Dynamic Reasoning Control

Gemini 3.5 Flash ships with dynamic thinking mode on by default. This means the model shows its reasoning process, similar to chain-of-thought prompting, but with configurable thinking levels that let you control the trade-off between quality, cost, and latency.

The thinking levels are "standard" and "extended." Standard thinking adds minimal latency and cost while improving response quality on complex tasks. Extended thinking dedicates more computation to harder problems, producing better results at higher cost and latency. The key innovation is that this is dynamic: the model automatically adjusts thinking depth based on task complexity rather than requiring you to choose a thinking mode upfront.

For agent systems, this is practical rather than academic. Simple tasks (classifying an email, extracting a name from text) run at maximum speed with minimal thinking. Complex tasks (analyzing a financial report, debugging code) automatically get more reasoning time. The system scales its compute investment to match the difficulty of each task, which is exactly the behavior you want from an agent that handles a heterogeneous mix of easy and hard work throughout the day.

Cost Implications of Thinking Mode

The thinking tokens count toward your output token usage, which means extended thinking on complex tasks costs more than standard thinking on simple tasks. This creates a natural economic incentive: you pay more for harder reasoning. In practice, this means the $9.00/1M output pricing is a blended average. Simple tasks that require minimal thinking cost less per task than the headline rate suggests. Complex tasks that trigger extended thinking cost more.

For developers who want precise cost control, the thinking levels can be configured explicitly rather than left to the model's dynamic adjustment. Setting "standard" thinking for all calls gives predictable costs but potentially worse results on hard tasks. Setting "extended" for all calls gives better results but higher costs and latency. The dynamic default is the sweet spot for most agent systems where task difficulty varies throughout the day.

Comparison with Competitor Thinking Models

The thinking mode approach differs from competitor implementations. OpenAI's o-series (o1, o3) uses a separate model family for chain-of-thought reasoning, which means you need to choose between a thinking model (slow, expensive, better reasoning) and a non-thinking model (fast, cheap, less reasoning). Anthropic's Claude includes an "extended thinking" option that can be toggled per request. Google's approach with 3.5 Flash integrates thinking natively with dynamic adjustment, which eliminates the need for developers to implement their own task-routing logic to select thinking vs non-thinking models.

For agent systems, Google's approach is the most developer-friendly because the model itself decides when to think harder. This removes an entire category of engineering complexity (task difficulty classification and model routing) from the agent developer's responsibility.

---

14. When to Use Gemini 3.5 Flash (and When Not To)

Based on the benchmark data, pricing, and speed analysis, here are concrete recommendations.

Use Gemini 3.5 Flash when:

You are building AI agents that need to call tools, search the web, process documents, and take actions. The combination of leading agentic benchmarks, fastest speed, and competitive pricing makes it the default choice for agent infrastructure. Platforms like O-mega, which build autonomous AI workforces that handle end-to-end business operations, evaluate models like Flash on exactly these agent-relevant criteria.

You need high-volume, cost-sensitive API usage. At $1.50/$9.00 with 90% caching discounts, the economics of Flash support millions of daily interactions without budget concerns.

You need fast response times. At 289 tok/s, user-facing applications feel responsive even with complex multi-turn conversations.

You are building multimodal agents that process images, audio, and video alongside text. The MMMU-Pro and CharXiv scores demonstrate frontier-level multimodal understanding.

Do not use Gemini 3.5 Flash when:

You need the absolute best performance on hard reasoning tasks (ARC-AGI-2, Humanity's Last Exam). Use Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, or GPT-5.5 instead.

You need maximum software engineering capability. SWE-Bench scores show a significant gap between Flash and the flagships. Use Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5 for complex codebase modifications.

You need perfect long-context retrieval. The 7.6-point gap on MRCR v2 against 3.1 Pro matters for legal discovery, compliance review, and similar needle-in-a-haystack tasks.

You need the best creative writing quality. LMArena human preference rankings consistently favor the flagships (Claude Opus, GPT-5.5) for long-form, nuanced writing. Flash is built for efficiency, not prose artistry.

Industry-Specific Recommendations

Different industries have different model requirements. Here is how 3.5 Flash fits specific verticals.

Financial Services: Flash's leading score on Finance Agent v2 (57.9%, 14.9 points above 3.1 Pro) makes it the strongest choice for financial AI agents: portfolio monitoring, transaction classification, risk alerting, and compliance screening. The speed advantage matters in finance because market-relevant information is time-sensitive. An agent that processes market events in 1 second captures opportunities that a 10-second agent misses.

E-commerce: Universal Cart at I/O 2026 runs on Flash, which tells you Google considers it sufficient for shopping agent tasks: product comparison, compatibility checking, price monitoring, and checkout assistance. For e-commerce businesses building their own shopping agents, Flash's tool-use capabilities (MCP Atlas: 83.6%) and cost structure make it the natural choice.

Healthcare and Life Sciences: The MMMU-Pro score (84.0%) demonstrates strong multimodal understanding, which is relevant for processing medical images, lab reports, and clinical documentation. However, the reasoning gap on HLE (40.2% vs flagships) suggests that for complex diagnostic reasoning, a flagship model may produce more reliable results. The Google Co-Scientist program specifically targets scientific research with Gemini models.

Software Development: Flash's Terminal-Bench score (76.2%) is strong for routine coding tasks: code generation, test writing, documentation, and code review. For complex refactoring, debugging production issues, or architecturally significant changes, the SWE-Bench gap against Claude Opus 4.7 (87.6%) and GPT-5.5 (88.7%) is material. For a detailed comparison of AI coding tools, see the Claude Agent SDK guide.

Customer Service: High-volume customer interactions benefit most from Flash's speed and cost. At 289 tok/s, response latency is imperceptible. At $1.50/$9.00, the cost per customer interaction is pennies. The tool-use capability enables agents that can look up order status, process returns, schedule appointments, and escalate complex issues, all within the customer conversation.

---

15. Gemini 3.5 Pro: What We Know

Gemini 3.5 Pro is delayed to June 2026 (Google originally suggested it might arrive at I/O). It is currently in internal testing. Google has not released public benchmark scores. Based on the pattern of previous generations (where Pro significantly outperforms Flash on reasoning benchmarks while Flash leads on speed and cost), 3.5 Pro is expected to lead on both agentic AND pure reasoning benchmarks, potentially establishing a new overall state of the art.

The June timeline means businesses choosing between Gemini 3.5 Flash and competitor flagships today face a decision: deploy with Flash now (and potentially migrate to Pro later), or wait a few weeks for Pro's release and benchmark data. For most agent use cases, Flash is the right choice now. For reasoning-heavy applications, waiting for 3.5 Pro may be worthwhile.

What 3.5 Pro Will Likely Mean for the Market

Based on the pattern of previous generations, Gemini 3.5 Pro will likely push the frontier on both agentic AND pure reasoning benchmarks, potentially surpassing Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 across the board. If this happens, it will be the first time a single Google model leads on all major benchmark categories simultaneously. The pricing will likely be higher than Flash (probably in the $3-5/1M input range), but lower than Claude Opus ($5/1M) and GPT-5.5 ($5/1M).

For the competitive landscape, 3.5 Pro's arrival could force Anthropic and OpenAI to accelerate their own model releases. Anthropic has Claude Opus 4.7 already shipping with 87.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, but if 3.5 Pro matches or exceeds this at lower cost, the pressure to release the next Claude generation increases. The model release cadence across the industry has compressed from 6-month cycles to 2-3 month cycles, driven partly by Google's aggressive Flash-then-Pro release strategy.

---

16. First-Principles Analysis: Why Speed Beats Capability

The conventional wisdom in AI is that the most capable model is the best model. This has been true for chatbot-era products where a single model call produces a single response. But the agent era inverts this logic, and understanding why explains Google's strategic choice to release Flash before Pro.

The Agent Economics Equation

An agent completing a task makes N model calls, where N ranges from 3-5 (simple tasks) to 50+ (complex multi-step tasks). The total cost is N times the per-call cost. The total latency is N times the per-call latency (simplified, assuming sequential calls). For an agent making 20 calls per task:

• Gemini 3.5 Flash: 20 calls x ~1 sec = 20 seconds, 20 calls x ~$0.01 = $0.20
• Claude Opus 4.6: 20 calls x ~4 sec = 80 seconds, 20 calls x ~$0.03 = $0.60
• GPT-5.5: 20 calls x ~1.5 sec = 30 seconds, 20 calls x ~$0.035 = $0.70

Flash completes the same task 4x faster and 3x cheaper than Opus, even though Opus is more capable on individual reasoning steps. The question is whether the capability difference matters for the specific task. If the task is "read this email and draft a response," a 90th-percentile model and a 99th-percentile model produce indistinguishable results. The extra capability is wasted. But the 4x speed difference and 3x cost difference compound across millions of tasks per day.

When Capability Matters More Than Speed

There are tasks where the capability gap between Flash and the flagships produces meaningfully different outcomes. Debugging a complex race condition in a distributed system. Synthesizing contradictory evidence from multiple legal documents. Writing a technical paper that requires deep domain expertise. For these tasks, the flagships' higher scores on SWE-Bench, ARC-AGI-2, and HLE translate to tangibly better results.

The optimal architecture for most businesses is a routing system that sends easy tasks to Flash (fast, cheap, good enough) and hard tasks to a flagship (slower, expensive, excellent). This is exactly how Google's own products work: Gemini Spark runs on Flash for routine monitoring and simple actions, but can escalate to more capable models for complex reasoning when needed. This mirrors the approach of autonomous AI platforms like O-mega, where task complexity determines which model handles each step.

The Broader Industry Implication

Gemini 3.5 Flash's release accelerates a trend that has been building for two years: the commoditization of intelligence. When a speed-tier model at $1.50/$9.00 matches or beats last-generation flagships on real-world tasks, the "intelligence premium" that flagship models can charge narrows. This creates pressure on Anthropic, OpenAI, and other providers to either reduce flagship pricing, differentiate on non-benchmark dimensions (developer experience, safety, reliability, ecosystem), or accept that flagships serve an increasingly niche market.

For businesses, this commoditization is pure upside. The capability you need for most production AI tasks is now available at commodity prices. The expensive flagships become reserved for genuinely hard problems, not the default for everything. This is the same dynamic that played out with cloud computing (commodity compute replaced premium servers for most workloads) and will likely play out the same way: rapid adoption of cost-effective options for the majority of use cases, with premium options surviving for specialized needs.

The LMArena Question

One benchmark is notably absent from Flash's dominance: LMArena (formerly LMSYS Chatbot Arena), the crowdsourced human preference ranking. As of May 2026, Claude Opus 4.6 leads at 1,504 Elo, with Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview close behind. Gemini 3.5 Flash is too new to have accumulated enough votes for a stable ranking, but speed-tier models historically score lower on LMArena because the evaluation favors verbose, polished responses over concise, efficient ones.

This matters because LMArena captures something benchmarks do not: whether humans actually prefer talking to this model. For consumer-facing chatbot products, LMArena scores are arguably more important than any benchmark. For agent infrastructure (where the model talks to tools, not humans), LMArena is less relevant. The distinction reinforces the core thesis: Flash is built for agents, not for chat.

Yuma Heymans (@yumahey), who founded O-mega to build autonomous AI workforces, has observed that the most effective agent systems are not those running the single most powerful model but those that dynamically route between models based on task complexity, exactly the architecture that Gemini 3.5 Flash's speed and cost advantages make possible.

---

17. Conclusion

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the most important model release of 2026 so far, not because it is the most capable model in existence but because it is the model that makes the agent era economically viable. At 289 tokens per second, $1.50/$9.00 per million tokens, and leading scores on every agentic benchmark, it is the first speed-tier model to surpass its own company's flagship on the benchmarks that matter most for production agent systems.

The decision framework is straightforward.

If you are building agents (automated task completion, tool use, monitoring, multi-step workflows): Gemini 3.5 Flash is the default choice. No other model matches its combination of agentic capability, speed, and cost.

If you need maximum reasoning capability (research, complex analysis, hard coding problems): Wait for Gemini 3.5 Pro (June 2026), or use Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.5 today.

If you need the absolute cheapest option and can sacrifice some capability: DeepSeek V4 Flash ($0.14/$0.28) or Mistral Large 3 ($0.50/$1.50) are dramatically cheaper, though with correspondingly lower agentic scores.

If you need the best creative writing and human preference: Claude Opus 4.6 leads LMArena with 1,504 Elo and remains the preferred model for human-facing text quality.

The model landscape is no longer a single leaderboard. It is a matrix of trade-offs across speed, cost, capability, and specialization. Gemini 3.5 Flash occupies the most important cell in that matrix for the agent era: fast enough, smart enough, and cheap enough to make AI agents a default infrastructure choice rather than a premium luxury.

The Model Selection Decision Tree

To make the decision concrete, here is how to think about model selection for production AI in May 2026.

Start by asking: Is the primary consumer of this model's output a human or another system? If a human reads the output (customer-facing chat, content generation, analysis reports), writing quality matters and LMArena human preference scores are relevant. Claude Opus 4.6 (1,504 Elo) and GPT-5.5 are the strongest choices for human-facing text quality.

If another system consumes the output (agent orchestration, tool calling, data processing, automated workflows), benchmark scores on agentic tasks and speed/cost matter more than writing quality. Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on this dimension.

Next, ask: How many model calls does each task require? Single-call tasks (summarize this document, answer this question) tolerate slower, more expensive models because the per-task cost is low. Multi-call tasks (agent workflows with 10-50 calls per task) amplify speed and cost differences multiplicatively. Flash's advantages compound with each additional call.

Finally, ask: What is the failure cost of a wrong answer? For high-stakes decisions (medical diagnosis, legal analysis, financial trading), the capability gap between Flash and the flagships on pure reasoning benchmarks (ARC-AGI-2, HLE, GPQA) matters because errors have significant consequences. For low-stakes, high-volume tasks (email classification, appointment scheduling, data formatting), Flash's capability is more than sufficient and its speed/cost advantages dominate.

This framework, combined with the benchmark and pricing data in this guide, should provide enough information to make an informed model selection for any production use case. For ongoing updates as new models release and benchmarks evolve, we maintain a living comparison at our AI model benchmarks and pricing page.

This guide reflects pricing and benchmarks as of May 20, 2026. AI model capabilities, pricing, and benchmarks change rapidly. Verify current details on official provider pricing pages before making deployment decisions.