Skip to content

Google Proprietary Released Mar 15, 2024 Updated

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B

ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.

Model summary

  • Vision #139 / 167

    190 / 1,000

    ToolsGuide Score· votes 188, tests 192

  • Price per 1M tokens

    No listed price

Summary

Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B is Google's model, released Mar 15, 2024. It's ranked in 1 category and does best at vision: #139 of 167, with a ToolsGuide Score of 190 against a median of 346.

It has published results on 13 tests.

Specifications

Creator
Google
Licence
Proprietary
Released
Mar 15, 2024
Context window
–
Input price
–
Output price
–
Tests reported
13
Settings ranked
Gemini 1.5 Flash-8B (001)

Model comparison

Against the ten best vision models.

Vision score

ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better

Input price

USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better

Leaderboards

Where Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B sits among the top 20 in each category.

Vision

#139 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full vision leaderboard →

By task

Scored from votes on each kind of prompt alone, on the same 1,000-point scale.

Vision

Gemini 1.5 Flash-8B (001) · hover a bar for its rank

Test results

Every test Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.

  • GPQA

    #230 / 256

    Graduate-level science questions written to be hard to look up.

    38.4%

    Self-reported

  • MMLU-Pro

    #116 / 142

    Broad knowledge and reasoning across 14 subjects, ten answer choices each.

    58.7%

    Self-reported

  • MATH

    #50 / 71

    MATH dataset contains 12,500 challenging competition mathematics problems from AMC 10, AMC 12, AIME, and other mathematics competitions. Each problem includes full step-by-step solutions and spans multiple difficulty levels (1-5) across seven mathematical subjects including Prealgebra, Algebra, Number Theory, Counting and Probability, Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, and Precalculus.

    58.7%

    Self-reported

  • MMMU

    #56 / 66

    MMMU (Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding) is a benchmark designed to evaluate multimodal models on college-level subject knowledge and deliberate reasoning. Contains 11.5K meticulously collected multimodal questions from college exams, quizzes, and textbooks, covering six core disciplines: Art & Design, Business, Science, Health & Medicine, Humanities & Social Science, and Tech & Engineering across 30 subjects and 183 subfields.

    53.7%

    Self-reported

  • MathVista

    #33 / 40

    MathVista evaluates mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts. It consists of 6,141 examples derived from 28 existing multimodal datasets and 3 newly created datasets (IQTest, FunctionQA, and PaperQA), combining challenges from diverse mathematical and visual tasks to assess models' ability to understand complex figures and perform rigorous reasoning.

    54.7%

    Self-reported

  • Video-MME

    #16 / 17

    Video-MME is the first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in video analysis. It features 900 videos totaling 254 hours with 2,700 human-annotated question-answer pairs across 6 primary visual domains (Knowledge, Film & Television, Sports Competition, Life Record, Multilingual, and others) and 30 subfields. The benchmark evaluates models across diverse temporal dimensions (11 seconds to 1 hour), integrates multi-modal inputs including video frames, subtitles, and audio, and uses rigorous manual labeling by expert annotators for precise assessment.

    66.2%

    Self-reported

  • HiddenMath

    #10 / 13

    Google DeepMind's internal mathematical reasoning benchmark that introduces novel problems not encountered during model training to evaluate true mathematical reasoning capabilities rather than memorization

    32.8%

    Self-reported

  • Natural2Code

    #6 / 8

    NaturalCodeBench (NCB) is a challenging code benchmark designed to mirror the complexity and variety of real-world coding tasks. It comprises 402 high-quality problems in Python and Java, selected from natural user queries from online coding services, covering 6 different domains.

    75.5%

    Self-reported

  • Vibe-Eval

    #8 / 8

    VIBE-Eval is a hard evaluation suite for measuring progress of multimodal language models, consisting of 269 visual understanding prompts with gold-standard responses authored by experts. The benchmark has dual objectives: vibe checking multimodal chat models for day-to-day tasks and rigorously testing frontier models, with the hard set containing >50% questions that all frontier models answer incorrectly.

    40.9%

    Self-reported

  • MRCR

    #5 / 7

    MRCR (Multi-Round Coreference Resolution) is a synthetic long-context reasoning task where models must navigate long conversations to reproduce specific model outputs. It tests the ability to distinguish between similar requests and reason about ordering while maintaining attention across extended contexts.

    54.7%

    Self-reported

  • FLEURS

    #6 / 6

    Few-shot Learning Evaluation of Universal Representations of Speech - a parallel speech dataset in 102 languages built on FLoRes-101 with approximately 12 hours of speech supervision per language for tasks including ASR, speech language identification, translation and retrieval. Scores are shown as speech recognition accuracy (1 - word error rate), so higher is better.

    86.4%

    Self-reported

  • WMT23

    #3 / 4

    The Eighth Conference on Machine Translation (WMT23) benchmark evaluating machine translation systems across 8 language pairs (14 translation directions) including general, biomedical, literary, and low-resource language translation tasks. Features specialized shared tasks for quality estimation, metrics evaluation, sign language translation, and discourse-level literary translation with professional human assessment.

    72.6%

    Self-reported

  • XSTest

    #4 / 4

    XSTest is a test suite designed to identify exaggerated safety behaviours in large language models. It comprises 450 prompts: 250 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with, and 200 unsafe prompts as contrasts that models should refuse. The benchmark systematically evaluates whether models refuse to respond to clearly safe prompts due to overly cautious safety mechanisms.

    92.6%

    Self-reported