Skip to content

Google Proprietary Released May 19, 2026 Updated

Gemini 3.5 Flash

ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.

Model summary

  • Text #31 / 416

    534 / 1,000

    ToolsGuide Score· votes 517, tests 551

  • Vision #12 / 167

    577 / 1,000

    ToolsGuide Score· votes 540, tests 615

  • Coding #59 / 147

    352 / 1,000

    ToolsGuide Score· votes 358, tests 347

  • Price per 1M tokens

    In $1.50· Out $9.00

    $1.50

    Input · median vision model $1.25

Summary

Gemini 3.5 Flash is Google's model, released May 19, 2026. It's ranked in 3 categories and does best at vision: #12 of 167, with a ToolsGuide Score of 577 against a median of 346.

It also ranks #31 of 416 for text (534), #59 of 147 for coding (352).

It costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $9.00 per million output tokens, about 1.2× the median vision model ($1.25).

It has published results on 21 tests and has the top score on 2 of them, including MultiChallenge (default) and nolima (hard_16k).

Specifications

Creator
Google
Licence
Proprietary
Released
May 19, 2026
Context window
1M tokens
Input price
$1.50 / 1M
Output price
$9.00 / 1M
Tests reported
21
Settings ranked
gemini-3.5-flash-high, gemini-3.5-flash-medium, Gemini 3.5 Flash (Medium), Gemini 3.5 Flash (High)

Model comparison

Against the ten best vision models.

Vision score

ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better

Text score

ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better

Input price

USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better

Leaderboards

Where Gemini 3.5 Flash sits among the top 20 in each category.

Text

#31 of 416 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full text leaderboard →

Vision

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

Full vision leaderboard →

Coding

#59 of 147 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full coding leaderboard →

By task

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

Score against price

Vision · the 10 priced models ranked closest · up and to the left is better value

Against its nearest rivals

Text prompts by kind · ToolsGuide Score from votes · hover for values

Text

gemini-3.5-flash-high · hover a bar for its rank

Vision

Gemini 3.5 Flash (Medium) · hover a bar for its rank

Coding

Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) · hover a bar for its rank

Test results

Every test Gemini 3.5 Flash has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.

  • GPQA

    #38 / 256

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

    88.9%

    Verified

  • Humanity's Last Exam

    #39 / 108

    Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is a multi-modal academic benchmark with 2,500 questions across mathematics, humanities, and natural sciences, designed to test LLM capabilities at the frontier of human knowledge with unambiguous, verifiable solutions

    40.2%

    Self-reported · In the text score· In the vision score

  • MMMU-Pro

    #2 / 73

    College-level questions that need both an image and text to answer.

    83.6%

    Self-reported · In the vision score

  • SWE-Bench Pro

    #43 / 61

    Harder, longer software engineering tasks from real codebases.

    55.1%

    Self-reported · In the coding score

  • CharXiv-R

    #18 / 60

    Reading and reasoning about charts from scientific papers.

    84.2%

    Self-reported

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    #5 / 54

    Getting real work done in a command-line terminal.

    76.2%

    Self-reported

  • DeepSWE 1.1

    #47 / 50

    DeepSWE 1.1 evaluates software engineering agents using the mini-swe-agent harness.

    37.0%

    Self-reported · In the coding score

  • Toolathlon

    #13 / 42

    Tool Decathlon is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents' ability to use multiple tools across diverse task categories. It measures proficiency in tool selection, sequencing, and execution across ten different tool-use scenarios.

    56.5%

    Self-reported · In the agents score

  • Multi-Challenge

    #15 / 41

    MultiChallenge is a realistic multi-turn conversation evaluation benchmark that challenges frontier LLMs across four key categories: instruction retention (maintaining instructions throughout conversations), inference memory (recalling and connecting details from previous turns), reliable versioned editing (adapting to evolving instructions during collaborative editing), and self-coherence (avoiding contradictions in responses). The benchmark evaluates models on sustained, contextually complex dialogues across diverse topics including travel planning, technical documentation, and professional communication.

    59.0%

    Verified

  • LiveBench

    #14 / 38

    LiveBench is a challenging, contamination-limited LLM benchmark that addresses test set contamination by releasing new questions monthly based on recently-released datasets, arXiv papers, news articles, and IMDb movie synopses. It comprises tasks across math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis with verifiable, objective ground-truth answers.

    75.0%

    Self-reported · In the text score

  • MCP Atlas

    #6 / 38

    MCP Atlas is a benchmark for evaluating AI models on scaled tool use capabilities, measuring how well models can coordinate and utilize multiple tools across complex multi-step tasks.

    83.6%

    Self-reported

  • MRCR v2 (8-needle)

    #20 / 32

    MRCR v2 (8-needle) is a variant of the Multi-Round Coreference Resolution benchmark that includes 8 needle items to retrieve from long contexts. This tests models' ability to simultaneously track and reason about multiple pieces of information across extended conversations.

    26.6%

    Self-reported · In the text score

  • Finance Agent v2

    #2 / 28

    Finance Agent v2 is an agentic financial-analysis benchmark from Vals that evaluates models on real-world finance workflows, measuring their ability to retrieve and reason over financial documents, perform multi-step calculations, and produce accurate analyses.

    57.9%

    Self-reported

  • OSWorld-Verified

    #13 / 28

    OSWorld-Verified is a verified subset of OSWorld, a scalable real computer environment for multimodal agents supporting task setup, execution-based evaluation, and interactive learning across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS.

    78.4%

    Self-reported

  • ARC-AGI v2

    #5 / 19

    ARC-AGI-2 is an upgraded benchmark for measuring abstract reasoning and problem-solving abilities in AI systems through visual grid transformation tasks. It evaluates fluid intelligence via input-output grid pairs (1x1 to 30x30) using colored cells (0-9), requiring models to identify underlying transformation rules from demonstration examples and apply them to test cases. Designed to be easy for humans but challenging for AI, focusing on core cognitive abilities like spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, and compositional generalization.

    72.1%

    Self-reported · In the text score· In the vision score

  • Legal Agent Benchmark

    #10 / 15

    The Legal Agent Benchmark (LAB) is Harvey's open-source benchmark for evaluating AI agents on complex, long-horizon legal work. Tasks are scored under an all-pass standard against expert-curated rubrics, where a task passes only if every required rubric criterion (facts, conclusions, citations, structure, and analytical moves) passes.

    0.8%

    Self-reported

  • GPQA (diamond)

    #2 / 10

    Graduate-level Google-Proof Q&A benchmark with paper-aligned full and diamond subsets.

    88.9%

    Unverified

  • MultiChallenge (default)

    #1 / 9

    59.0%

    Unverified

  • Finance Agent

    #5 / 8

    Finance Agent is a benchmark for evaluating AI models on agentic financial analysis tasks, testing their ability to process financial data, perform calculations, and generate accurate analyses across various financial domains.

    57.9%

    Self-reported

  • nolima (hard_16k)

    #1 / 6

    99.0%

    Independent

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    #2 / 2

    Blueprint-Bench 2 is an agentic spatial reasoning benchmark that evaluates a model's ability to understand, plan, and reason over architectural blueprints and other structured spatial documents. Scores are reported as a normalized score.

    33.6%

    Unverified