AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com
#4

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google Release: 2026-05-19 Tested on: 2026-05-19 23:35 google/gemini-3.5-flash::high
~500B total (~20B active)MoEClosedEstimated

Summary

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 9.6 on AI BENCHY and ranks #4. It has 10.0 reliability, a 96.5% pass rate, $0.773 total cost, and 6.90s average response time.

What makes Gemini 3.5 Flash unique: It is one of the highest-ranked models overall. It is notably fast compared with similar models.

Model facts

Researched on 2026-08-12

Estimated
Parameters
~500B total (~20B active)
Architecture
MoE
Availability
Closed
License
-

Best estimate from public evidence; the vendor did not disclose every value. Google does not disclose parameter counts.

Score

9.6

Consistency

9.6

Total Output Tokens

80,822

Total Input Tokens

0

Input Price

$1.500 / 1M

Output Price

$9.000 / 1M

Tests Correct

Wrong Tests: 1

Attempt pass rate: 96.5%

Flaky tests

1

Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).

Response Time (avg)

6.90s

Response Time (max): 22.37s

Response Time (total): 131.10s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#4 Gemini 3.5 Flash

high
Cost
$0.208
Time
118.2s
Tokens
23,158 tok

Run history

Tested on Score Reliability Tests Correct Total Cost Compare
2026-08-14 02:48 Re-test 9.4 10.0 $2.011 Compare
2026-07-16 23:05 New test added 9.5 10.0 $1.976 Compare
2026-06-04 14:03 New test added 9.6 10.0 $1.115 Compare
2026-05-22 00:30 Re-test 9.6 10.0 $0.994 Compare
2026-05-19 23:35 Initial run 9.6 10.0 $0.773 Current run

Run comparison

RunBenchmark coverageScoreConsistencyReliabilityTests CorrectFlaky testsTotal Output TokensTotal Input TokensTotal CostResponse Time (avg)
2026-05-19 23:35 · Initial run57/57 attempts9.69.610.018/19180,8220$0.7736.90s
2026-06-04 14:03 · New test added63/63 attempts9.69.610.020/211117,61337,594$1.1158.84s
Difference0.00.00.0-20-36791-37594-$0.343-1936ms

Benchmark coverage differs: 57/57 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 63/63 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.

These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.

Charts

Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Quick Compare

Category Breakdown

Category Score Consistency Tests Correct
Anti-AI Tricks 10.0 10.0
Coding 10.0 10.0
Combined 10.0 10.0
Data parsing and extraction 10.0 10.0
Domain specific 7.6 7.2
General Intelligence 10.0 10.0
Instructions following 10.0 10.0
Puzzle Solving 10.0 10.0
Tool Calling 9.8 10.0
Trivia 10.0 10.0

Compared models