AI BENCHY
Advertise here
#6

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google Release: 2026-05-19 Tested on: 2026-05-19 23:35 google/gemini-3.5-flash::none
~500B total (~20B active)MoEClosedEstimated
(high) (medium) (low) (minimal) (none)

Summary

Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 9.1 on AI BENCHY and ranks #6. It has 10.0 reliability, a 91.7% pass rate, $0.489 total cost, and 5.59s average response time.

What makes Gemini 3.5 Flash unique: It stands out most in Data parsing and extraction, where it ranks #1, while Combined is its weakest area at #15. 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.

Parameter source Availability source

Score

9.1

Consistency

9.0

Reliability

10.0

Total Cost (Current Price)

$0.489

Total Output Tokens

53,202

Total Input Tokens

0

Input Price

$1.500 / 1M

Output Price

$9.000 / 1M

Tests Correct

Wrong Tests: 2

Attempt pass rate: 91.7%

Flaky tests

2

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

Response Time (avg)

5.59s

Response Time (max): 14.88s

Response Time (total): 89.50s

Wrong answer: 2

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#6 Gemini 3.5 Flash

none
Cost
$0.225
Time
125.5s
Tokens
25,004 tok

Run history

Tested on Score Reliability Tests Correct Total Cost Compare
2026-08-14 02:46 Re-test 6.9 10.0 $1.093 Compare
2026-07-16 22:53 New test added 7.0 10.0 $1.079 Compare
2026-06-04 14:02 New test added 8.1 10.0 $1.079 Compare
2026-05-22 00:29 Suite changed 8.9 10.0 $0.924 Compare
2026-05-19 23:35 Initial run 9.1 10.0 $0.489 Current run

Run comparison

RunBenchmark coverageScoreConsistencyReliabilityTests CorrectFlaky testsTotal Output TokensTotal Input TokensTotal CostResponse Time (avg)
2026-05-19 23:35 · Initial run57/57 attempts9.19.010.014/16253,2020$0.4895.59s
2026-08-14 02:46 · Re-test66/66 attempts6.98.910.014/223119,10013,852$1.09310.18s
Difference—+2.2+0.10.0+3-1-65898-13852-$0.605-4589ms

Benchmark coverage differs: 57/57 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 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

Gemini 3.5 FlashnonevsSeed-2.0-CodehighGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsQwen3.6 FlashmediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsQwen3.7 FlashmediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsStep 3.7 FlashhighGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsKAT-Coder-Pro V2.5mediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsSeed-2.0-CodemediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsKimi K2.5mediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsSolar Pro 4lowGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsSeed-2.0-MinimediumGemini 3.5 FlashnonevsSolar Pro 4medium

Category Breakdown

Category Score Consistency Tests Correct
Anti-AI Tricks 10.0 10.0
Coding 10.0 10.0
Combined 0.0 0.0
Data parsing and extraction 10.0 10.0
Domain specific 7.6 7.2
General Intelligence 10.0 10.0
Instructions following 9.8 10.0
Puzzle Solving 10.0 10.0
Tool Calling 0.0 0.0
Trivia 2.8 1.6

Compared models