Compare AI models
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $2.00 | $1.50 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $12.00 | $9.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.20 | $0.15 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $1.00Google | $0.75Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $6.00Google | $4.50Google |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 37% | 20% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 14.2% | 14.1% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 45.7% | 54.2% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 49.2% | 60.5% |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 0% | 0% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 54.2% | 55.1% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 12% | 37% |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | 42.6% | 49.7% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 70.3% | 76.2% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 78.2% | 83.6% |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 48.8% | 56.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 44.4% | 40.2% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 51.4% | 40.2% |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 77.1% | 72.1% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 76.2% | 78.4% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 43% | 57.9% |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1314 | 1656 |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 965 | 1349 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 83.3% | 84.2% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 80.5% | 83.6% |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 26.5% | 33.6% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 84.9% | 77.3% |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 26.3% | 26.6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 80.6% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 58% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 68.5% | — |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 58% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 85.9% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 36.9% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 16.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.3% | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 67.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | ||
| Release date | Feb 19 2026 | May 19 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.1 ProvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.5 FlashvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.1 ProvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.1 ProvsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.5 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.1 ProvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 FlashvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.1 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.1 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.5 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads Gemini 3.1 Pro on 15 of the 23 benchmarks they both report. Gemini 3.5 Flash is cheaper on both input and output: $1.50 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $9.00 vs $12.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Gemini 3.1 Pro shipped 89 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 37% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 20%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 1, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 14.1% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 14.2%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 10, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 45.7% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 54.2%. On Gray Swan IPI · k = 15, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 49.2% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 60.5%. On ProgramBench, both models score 0%. On SWE-Bench Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 55.1% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 54.2%. On DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 37% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 12%. On MLE-Bench, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 49.7% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 42.6%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 76.2% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 70.3%. On MCP Atlas, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 83.6% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 78.2%. On Toolathlon, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 56.5% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 48.8%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 44.4% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 40.2%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 51.4% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 40.2%. On ARC-AGI-2, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 77.1% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 72.1%. On OSWorld-Verified, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 78.4% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 76.2%. On Finance Agent v2, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 57.9% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 43%. On GDPval-AA, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 1656 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 1314. On GDPval-AA v2, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 1349 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 965. On CharXiv Reasoning, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 84.2% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 83.3%. On MMMU-Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 83.6% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 80.5%. On Blueprint-Bench 2, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 33.6% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 26.5%. On MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k average, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads at 84.9% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash at 77.3%. On MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwise, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads at 26.6% vs Gemini 3.1 Pro at 26.3%.