# Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google · Proprietary · rank 25 · bench-align-v5

> Every figure below is reproduced as its upstream source published it: nothing is modelled, estimated, interpolated or converted. `Unavailable` means no source published the value — it is never a zero. Each value carries its evidence state and the date it was observed.

Page: https://modelscale.dev/models/gemini-3-5-flash  
JSON: https://modelscale.dev/api/model/gemini-3-5-flash

## Facts

| Field | Value | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Canonical id | `gemini-3-5-flash` | — |
| Overall score | 68.05 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Context window | 1M tokens | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Release date | 2026-05-19 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Access type | Proprietary | — |
| Blended $/1M (75% input / 25% output) | $3.38 | Derived from the input and output rates below |

## Capability evidence

Seven axes from the ranking source. An axis the source did not score is unavailable, not zero.

| Axis | Score | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Agentic | 75.3 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Coding | 48.6 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Knowledge | 68.3 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Reasoning | 59.4 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Multimodal & Grounded | 86.8 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Instruction Following | 84.1 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Math | 55.1 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |

## Runtime service evidence

Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim. Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled.

| Measurement | Value | Observed | Last good | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Time to first token | 33.65 s | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-22 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:speed |
| Throughput | 230 tok/s | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-22 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:speed |

## Endpoint and price matrix

Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.

| Component | USD | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.50 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:pricing |
| Output / 1M tokens | $9.00 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:pricing |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.15 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:pricing |
| Cache write / 1M tokens | Unavailable | Unavailable · source openrouter:pricing |
| Blended / 1M (75% input / 25% output) | $3.38 | Derived — from the input and output rates above; it has no source record of its own |
| Cost per successful task (LiveBench) | Unavailable | Unavailable · source livebench:table |

**Self-hosted listing.** Google's official Gemini Developer API pricing page lists Gemini 3.5 Flash at $1.50 input / $0.15 cached input / $9.00 output per million tokens on the standard paid tier. The rates above are a hosted price matched from another provider, not a first-party list price.

## Workload-aware monthly cost example

10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. Derived here from the published rates above by this site's own calculator — not a figure any source published.

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Modelled monthly cost | $9.50 |
| Modelled tokens | 2.82M |

## Benchmark record

49 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.

### Knowledge

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GPQA (Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A) | 92.2 | 448 questions | Graduate level | [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022) |
| GPQA-D (GPQA Diamond) | 92.7 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate level | [Trinity-Large-Thinking: Scaling an Open Source Frontier Agent](https://www.arcee.ai/blog/trinity-large-thinking) |
| HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) | 40.2 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert level | [Humanity's Last Exam](https://lastexam.ai/) |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 50.2 | Cross-benchmark intelligence index | Display-only external reference | [Artificial Analysis](https://artificialanalysis.ai/) |
| AA-GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond) | 92.2 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate-level science reasoning | [Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gpqa-diamond) |
| AA-HLE (Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam) | 42.7 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert reasoning | [Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/hle) |
| AA-Omniscience Index (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index) | 21.2 | Knowledge questions | Broad factual knowledge | [AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience) |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy) | 51.9 | Knowledge questions | Broad knowledge | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate) | 60.7 | Knowledge questions | Factuality | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) (GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run) | 92.7 | Graduate-level science questions | Expert reasoning | [Vals AI GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/gpqa) |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) (MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run) | 89.5 | Academic multiple-choice questions | Broad academic knowledge | [Vals AI MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/mmlu_pro) |

### Coding

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 76.2 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | [Terminal-Bench 2.0](https://www.tbench.ai/) |
| SWE-bench Pro | 55.1 | 1,865 repository problems | Long-horizon professional engineering | [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16941) |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vibe Code Bench v1.1) | 48.68 | End-to-end web application builds | End-to-end software delivery | [Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/vibe-code) |
| SciCode (Scientific Code Benchmark) | 53.1 | — | — | [BenchLM](https://benchlm.ai/benchmarks/scicode) |
| AA Coding Index (Artificial Analysis Coding Index) | 70.1 | Cross-benchmark coding index | Display-only external reference | [Artificial Analysis model leaderboards](https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models) |
| AA-SciCode (Artificial Analysis SciCode) | 53.9 | Scientific coding subproblems | Scientific programming | [Artificial Analysis SciCode Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode) |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) (LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run) | 87.6 | Competitive programming problems (easy, medium, hard) | Frontier coding | [Vals AI LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/lcb) |
| SWE-bench (Vals) (SWE-bench, Vals AI run) | 78.8 | Real repository issues by human time bucket | Frontier coding agents | [Vals AI SWE-bench, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/swebench) |

### Mathematics

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) (FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3) | 38.966 | 295 private advanced mathematics problems | From olympiad-plus to early research mathematics | [FrontierMath v2 benchmark hub](https://epoch.ai/benchmarks/frontiermath-tier-4-v2) |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) (FrontierMath v2 Tier 4) | 14.583 | 43 private extreme-difficulty mathematics problems | Research-level mathematics requiring hours or days of expert work | [FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 leaderboard](https://epoch.ai/benchmarks/frontiermath-tier-4-v2?view=graph&tab=leaderboard) |

### Reasoning

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MRCRv2 | 77.3 | Long-context retrieval | Hard long-context | [Introducing GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.2 Pro](https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-2/) |
| MRCR 1M | 26.6 | Million-token retrieval | Million-token long context | [DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report](https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro/blob/main/DeepSeek_V4.pdf) |
| ARC-AGI-2 (Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2) | 72.1 | Visual pattern completion and abstract reasoning | Expert-level — hardest public reasoning benchmark | [ARC-AGI-2: A Harder General Intelligence Benchmark](https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/2/) |
| AA-LCR (Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning) | 69.3 | Long-context reasoning tasks | Long-context reasoning | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| CritPt (Critical Physics Tasks) | 13.1 | Research-level physics questions | Research-level physics reasoning | [CritPt Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/critpt) |

### Instruction Following

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IFBench (Instruction Following Benchmark) | 76.3 | — | — | [BenchLM](https://benchlm.ai/benchmarks/ifbench) |
| AA-IFBench (Artificial Analysis IFBench) | 76.3 | Verifiable instruction constraints | Instruction precision | [Artificial Analysis IFBench Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/ifbench) |

### Agentic

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AA EnterpriseOps-Gym (Artificial Analysis EnterpriseOps-Gym) | 50.1 | Enterprise operations workflows | Enterprise agent operations | [Artificial Analysis EnterpriseOps-Gym Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/enterprise-ops-gym-aa) |
| AA ITBench (Artificial Analysis ITBench-AA) | 40.3 | IT incident-response tasks | Enterprise IT operations | [Artificial Analysis ITBench-AA Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/itbench-aa) |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 76.2 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | [Terminal-Bench 2.0](https://www.tbench.ai/) |
| GDPval-AA | 1345 | Agentic real-world work tasks | Professional agentic workflows | [DeepSeek-V4 Technical Report](https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro/blob/main/DeepSeek_V4.pdf) |
| GDPval-AA (GDPval-AA normalized) | 42.2 | Economically valuable tasks | Professional agentic workflows | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| AA Agentic Index (Artificial Analysis Agentic Index) | 27.3 | Cross-benchmark agentic index | Display-only external reference | [Artificial Analysis model leaderboards](https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models) |
| AA-AnalystAgent (Artificial Analysis AnalystAgent) | 45.0 | Spreadsheet and document analysis questions | Business and data analysis | [AA-AnalystAgent Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/aa-analyst-agent) |
| APEX-Agents-AA | 47.1 | 452 professional-services agent tasks | Long-horizon workplace agent tasks | [APEX-Agents-AA Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/apex-agents-aa) |
| Gert Labs (Gert Labs Composite Game Benchmark) | 61.85 | Novel game environments | Agentic coding and decision-making | [Gert Labs rankings](https://gertlabs.com/rankings) |
| OSWorld-Verified | 78.4 | 369 real-world computer tasks (361 when eight Google Drive tasks are excluded) | Multi-step desktop and cross-application workflows | [OSWorld](https://os-world.github.io/) |
| MCP Atlas | 83.6 | Tool-integrated agent tasks | Advanced tool use | [Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano](https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/) |
| Toolathlon | 56.5 | Multi-tool workflows | Advanced tool use | [Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano](https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/) |
| τ²-bench results (τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation) | 95.3 | Airline, retail, and telecom customer-service task sets | Dual-control customer-service workflows | [τ²-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982) |
| ResearchClawBench | 18.0 | 40 tasks across 10 scientific domains | Scientific research re-discovery | [ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research](https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07591) |
| Finance Agent v2 | 57.9 | Financial analyst task categories | Professional expert-task agent workflow | [Finance Agent v2](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/fabv2) |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) (Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run) | 74.2 | Difficult terminal tasks | Frontier agentic | [Vals AI Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/terminal-bench-2-1) |

### Multimodal & Grounded

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MMMU-Pro (Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro) | 83.6 | Multimodal academic reasoning | Frontier multimodal | [MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02813) |
| AA-MMMU-Pro (Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro) | 84.3 | Multimodal academic reasoning | Frontier multimodal | [Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/mmmu-pro) |
| Design Arena Website (Design Arena Website Elo) | 1275 | Website generation comparisons | Design and website generation | [OpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks](https://openrouter.ai/x-ai/grok-4.3/benchmarks) |
| CharXiv (CharXiv Reasoning) | 84.2 | Scientific chart reasoning | Scientific visualization reasoning | [CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs](https://charxiv.github.io/) |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6 | Spatial reasoning from blueprints | Agentic spatial reasoning | [Gemini 3.5 Flash launch screenshots](https://x.com/GoogleDeepMind) |

## Lifecycle and limitations log

Lifecycle events the source associates with this model.

No lifecycle event references this model. That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.

## What this profile does not claim

Values are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned. Last attempted fetch for this model's score: 2026-09-22 10:17 UTC.