Skip to main content

Gemini Flash model by Google

Gemini 3.8 Flash

A Gemini Flash release for long-horizon software engineering, agents, and enterprise workflows.

Official page

Where it sits in Google's lineup

  1. Gemini ProGoogle's Gemini family for complex reasoning and multimodal work.Gemini 4 Argon
  2. Gemini FlashGoogle's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.This model
  3. GemmaGoogle's open-weight Gemma models, built from the technology behind Gemini.Gemma 4 31B
Stack role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
Offered in
6 products
Made by
Google
Family
Gemini Flash, version 3.8
Released
Sep 2, 2026 Current
In its family
The newest of 2 Gemini Flash releases.

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Gemini 3.8 Flash

  • Gemini 3.8 Flash

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Gemini 3.8 Flash, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Gemini 3.8 Flash.

Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogleThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks third of 25 on Answers in full, 4th of 24 on Science and 4th of 24 on Multimodal. Computer use is Google's own figure on OSWorld 2.0, marked on the chart. It ranks lowest on Math, 20th of 28 and Agentic coding, 22nd of 31. Instruction following: not yet published by Google or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.

On the chart

  • Gemini 3.8 FlashThis pageResults on 11 of 12 axes$0.75 / $3.75Rises to $1.50 / $7.50 on Jan 1, 2027.133 tokens/sFirst token in 27 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Gemini 3.8 Flash on each axis11 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Gemini 3.8 Flash, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$3.49per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at high effort.

Cached input
$0.075 per 1M tokens

Speed

136tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at high effort.

First token
28 s
Whole answer
32 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
66K
Reads
Text, Images, Speech, Video

Quality

40.9of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at high effort.

GDPval knowledge work
1,445 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
19.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index
157

Hallucination

55.1%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at high effort.

Knowledge accuracy
50.5%

Where you can get it

10of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
No
Licence
Gemini API Additional Terms of Service
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, Google, OpenRouter, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under .

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Gemini 3.8 Flash's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingGemini 3.8 FlashRunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness19.7%Gemini 3.8 FlashEffort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run56.6%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run68.4%Effort: high. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 2, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run95.4%Effort: high. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 2, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools47.8%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run59.9%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.0Partial score, release before v2026.08.08, batch tool calls. Google's own run in its Gemini computer-use harness, best of 3 runs, on the task files before the August patch. Google does not print the thinking level.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of Gemini 3.8 Flash yet.59%Effort: not published. Harness: Gemini CUA harness (OSWorld 2.0 repo), batch tool calls.GoogleReported by GoogleSep 2, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run81.3%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools85.6%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run50.5%Hallucination rate 55.1% in the same run (lower is better)Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. SpeechMap tested it through OpenRouter with reasoning on and counted 11.7% of requests denied and 1.8% evaded.86.1%0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: reasoning on. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by Google or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • Gemini 3.8 Flash lists at $0.75 per million input tokens and $3.75 per million output tokens. Rises to $1.50 / $7.50 on Jan 1, 2027. Google pricing, Oct 27, 2026.
  • Gemini 3.8 Flash, at high effort, writes 132.6 output tokens per second on Google's API, and its first token arrives 27 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  11. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  5. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  41. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  23. Claude Sonnet 582%
  24. GPT-5.482%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  33. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Claude Opus 579.3%
  39. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  30. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Every measure on record

Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Gemini 3.8 Flash beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.

Every measure on record for Gemini 3.8 Flash: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureGemini 3.8 FlashRunSourceRead
Specs and access
Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that.1MArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.66Kno Google figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 65,536OpenRouterOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.Text, Images, Speech, VideoArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under.Gemini API Additional Terms of ServiceGoogleNov 1, 2026
Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run.NoArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included.10 of 19GILD route matrixOct 28, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.28,275Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.16Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$3.05Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$3.22Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.27Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.16Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$3.49Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000.$3,770Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.71,003Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.42,727Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cached inputLower is better. The maker's list price for input read from its prompt cache, per million tokens.$0.075GoogleOct 30, 2026
Speed
End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt.69 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.32 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt.66 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.28 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long.148 tokens/sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.136 tokens/sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s.503 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size.66 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking.28 sGemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reliability
Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline.55.1%High effortArtificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.50.5%High effortArtificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.29.6Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience.69.7%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,202Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.46.3%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.64.3%Mercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.21%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,445Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.10.6%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it.$5,094Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.81.3%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,270High effortSakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.89.2%High effortARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.58%High effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.18.3%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
CursorBenchCursorBench score from Cursor, as Epoch AI republishes it.39.6%High effortCursor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it.73.8%High effortDatacurve (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.94.9%Medium effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval.157Gemini 3.8 FlashEpoch AIOct 26, 2026
FrontierCode (AA run)AA's FrontierCode score: hard, unsaturated coding tasks.36.4%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run.22.0%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.68.4%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
FrontierSWEFrontierSWE score, as Epoch AI republishes it.19.6%High effortFrontierSWE (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run.95.3%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.95.4%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.47.8%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.40.9Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
IT-Bench SRE (AA run)AA's IT-Bench SRE score for incident and reliability agents.52.5%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn.52.9Medium effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run.85.6%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.47%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.98.9%High effortEpoch AISep 2, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.48%Vals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.56.6%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score.44.9%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.19.7%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness.10%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,568High effortLMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
WeirdML v3, best runWeirdML v3 maximum performance across runs, as Epoch AI republishes it.14.6%High effortHåvard Tveit Ihle (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.52.4Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.42.8Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.46.8Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.40.1Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.51.6Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.48.4Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Harvey Legal Lab (AA run)AA's run of Harvey's legal task lab.0%Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Gemini 3.8 Flash is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

10 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Gemini 3.8 Flash today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
AntigravityAvailablenot statedpicker label Gemini 3.8 FlashAntigravity: all plans; Gemini CLI page does not name it (stale since Mar 19, 2026)Google
CursorAvailablenot statedpicker label Gemini 3.8 Flashlisted at US$0.75/US$3.75Anysphere (Cursor)Cursor, Cursor Docs — Agent, Rules, MCP, Skills & CLICursor, Models & Pricing
DatabricksAvailabledatabricks-gemini-3-8-flashavailableDatabricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs
The maker's own APIAvailablegemini-3.8-flash1,048,576 input / 65,536 outputGoogle
GitHub CopilotAvailablenot statedpicker label Gemini 3.8 Flashavailable (GA)GitHub
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Availablegemini-3.8-flashGA Sept 2, 2026; global and us/eu multi-region; 1,048,576 / 65,536; batch, Flex and Priority PayGoGoogle Cloud, Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle Cloud, Agent Platform Pricing
OpenCodeAvailablegemini-3.8-flashOpenCode Zen, Google endpointAnomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterAvailablegoogle/gemini-3.8-flash1,048,576 / 65,536; US$0.825/US$4.125OpenRouter
Snowflake CortexAvailablegemini-3.8-flashRegions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); Google Cloud US (Cross-Region). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 64,000 tokens.Snowflake
Windsurf / DevinAvailablegemini-3-8-flash-highgemini-3-8-flash-lowgemini-3-8-flash-mediumLow/Medium/High; intro US$0.75/US$3.75 to Dec 31, 2026Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability

Not offered on 2 routes: Amazon Bedrock and Microsoft Foundry.

6 routes do not say: Claude Code, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.

What each of these 8 routes' pages say, with sources
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockNot offeredBedrock's Google row lists Gemma models onlyAmazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Supported foundation models in Amazon Bedrock
Microsoft FoundryNot offeredFoundry names no Google modelMicrosoft Learn, Foundry Models sold by Azure
Claude CodeNot statedClaude Code's model configuration page, read Oct 28 and Oct 29, 2026, does not name this model. It takes a full model name on the Anthropic API, an inference profile ARN on Amazon Bedrock and a deployment name on Microsoft Foundry.Anthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Not statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Claude Platform on AWSNot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
CodexNot statedCodex docs list OpenAI models only
Gemini CLINot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Grok BuildNot statedGrok Build pages name only grok-4.7xAI (SpaceXSI)

Prices by route

The lowest standard rate is Artificial Analysis price record, at $0.75 / $3.75 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
Gemini APIMaker$0.075Batch $0.38, until Dec 31, 2026, then $0.75 from Jan 1, 2027Flex $0.38, until Dec 31, 2026, then $0.75 from Jan 1, 2027Priority $1.35, until Dec 31, 2026, then $2.70 from Jan 1, 2027Promotion $0.75 / $3.75, until Dec 31, 2026, then $1.50 / $7.50 from Jan 1, 2027Google, Oct 30, 2026Google, Oct 27, 2026
Artificial Analysis price recordLowest$0.75 / $3.75$0.075Blended $1.50, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $0.58, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $0.75Artificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026
OpenRouter$0.82 / $4.13$0.083Cache write $0.042, 5-minute cacheOpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Through OpenRouter, 7 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Google (global)50% discount included$0.75 / $3.75$0.075Cache write $0.042, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedUp 99.0% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studio50% discount included$0.75 / $3.75$0.075Cache write $0.042, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google (us)50% discount included$0.82 / $4.13$0.083Cache write $0.042, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedUp 93.4% / 90%1.05M context, 66K output
Google (global, flex)Cache read $0.037, flex tier, 50% discount includedCache write $0.021, flex tier, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedFlex $0.38 / $1.88, flex tier, 50% discount includedUp 58.3% / 50%1.05M context, 66K output
Google (global, priority)Cache read $0.14, priority tier, 50% discount includedCache write $0.075, priority tier, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedPriority $1.35 / $6.75, priority tier, 50% discount includedUp 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studio (flex)Cache read $0.037, flex tier, 50% discount includedCache write $0.021, flex tier, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedFlex $0.38 / $1.88, flex tier, 50% discount includedUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studio (priority)Cache read $0.14, priority tier, 50% discount includedCache write $0.075, priority tier, 5-minute cache, 50% discount includedPriority $1.35 / $6.75, priority tier, 50% discount includedUp 98.9% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output

Uptime and speed by endpoint

Each provider endpoint as its monitor reports it: uptime over the last day and the last 30 minutes, output speed and time to first token, and the limits it serves. A blank is a figure the monitor does not publish for that endpoint.

EndpointUptime, 1 dayUptime, 30 minOutput speedFirst tokenContext / max outputSource
Artificial Analysis: Google AI Studio133 tokens/s27 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026

Lineup

Google's 5 releases in 3 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Gemini 3.8 Flash is lit.

CurrentLegacyThis model

Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 31, 2026.

  1. Gemini Pro

    Google's Gemini family for complex reasoning and multimodal work.

    2 releases

    1. 3.1 PreviewCurrent. In 4 products we coverPrice$2 / $12Speed144.6 tok/s
    2. 4Current. In 7 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed82 tok/s

  2. Gemini Flash

    Google's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.

    2 releases

    1. 3.6Legacy. In 2 products we coverPrice$0.75 / $3.75Speed190.6 tok/s
    2. This page3.8Current. In 6 products we coverPrice$0.75 / $3.75Speed132.6 tok/s

  3. Gemma

    Google's open-weight Gemma models, built from the technology behind Gemini.

    1 release

    1. 4 31BCurrent. In 1 product we coverPrice$0.14 / $0.40, on Amazon BedrockSpeed35.5 tok/s

Where it fits

The layers of Agentic Software Development that Gemini 3.8 Flash can power. A product supplies the rest.

Product & Engineering, Software Development

Agentic Software Development

Primary role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine

Gemini 3.8 Flash can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.

  1. Work planning & task decomposition

    The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  2. Codebase context & intelligence

    The provider documents long-context or codebase-oriented reasoning suitable for this layer. Google's page

    Strong fit

  3. Coding & implementation

    The provider documents this Model for software-engineering and coding work. Google's page

    Strong fit

  4. Debugging & investigation

    The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  5. Testing & verification

    The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  6. Code review & quality

    The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

Products

We cover 6 products that offer Gemini 3.8 Flash today: 5 subscriptions and 1 API.

Through a subscription

  1. OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.AI Coding AgentSupported
  2. Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.Premium, Super, Ultra, Teams, EnterprisePlans that include it
  3. GitHub Copilot+15 MixedGitHub's AI coding agents, IDE assistance, and pull request review.Copilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, Copilot Max, Copilot Business, Copilot EnterprisePlans that include it
  4. Google Antigravity−16 MixedGoogle's agent platform for software work: a desktop manager, a CLI, an IDE, and editor extensions.Free & Google AI Plus, Google AI Pro, Google AI Ultra, EnterprisePlans that include it
  5. Perplexity−25 NegativeAI answer engine with cited web research, model choice, and an agent for longer tasks.Pro, MaxPlans that include it

Through an API

  1. Gemini API0 MixedDeveloper access to Gemini models through Google's API and SDKs.AI Model APISupported

Limits each vendor states

CursorPremium, Super, Ultra, Teams, Enterprise
Not part of the included pool: on Premium and above, billed at the model's API list price from the first request, paid from prepaid credit (input $0.75, no cache write price, cache read $0.075, output $3.75 per million tokens); US data residency: No. Plus and Free do not include third-party models.
GitHub CopilotCopilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, Copilot Max, Copilot Business, Copilot Enterprise
Included on the Copilot plans listed. Copilot Free and Copilot Student get auto model selection only, so they cannot pick it.
PerplexityPro, Max
In Perplexity's Search model picker on Pro and Max; usage limits apply, with no per-model figures published.

Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Anysphere (Oct 28, 2026), GitHub (Oct 31, 2026), Google (Oct 26, 2026), Perplexity (Oct 26, 2026).

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name Gemini 3.8 Flash, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Speed, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Gemini 3.8 Flash that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Gemini 3.8 Flash on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Gemini 3.8 Flash and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisGemini 3.8 FlashGemini 4 ArgonGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured output47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long context38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 117 accounts behind Gemini 3.8 Flash's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, LMArena, the Google AI Developers Forum and the web for accounts that name Gemini 3.8 Flash.

Quality and reasoning 56%

Tool use and structured output 47%

Long context 38%

Developer experience 39%

  • Unfavorable
    it generated 170M tokens, which is very verbose in comparison to the median of 87M

    Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.8 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High).

  • Favorable
    the exec communication is also crystal clear, instead of filling with jargons and long sentences

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". keytalker, HN commenter who maintains a subagent-swarm skill, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash driving a subagent swarm.

  • Unfavorable
    the "Extended Thinking" should be renamed to "Slightly Extended Thinking"

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". glimshe, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash with Extended Thinking in the Gemini app.

  • Unfavorable
    no amount of convincing not to do it would work

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". lostmsu, HN commenter building a voice assistant for AI harnesses, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as the delegating model in a voice assistant.

  • Favorable
    3.8 flash is the best back-and-forth model for iterating

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". TomGarden, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for iterative work.

  • Favorable
    I have to be less careful in my exact phrasing. It kind of just does what I want and expect.

    Comment on "GPT-6 Sol and Luna". spockz, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for Go programming.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.8 Flash has been a joy to use in comparison (and so fast!) as a daily driver

    Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". mattlondon, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a daily driver against Opus 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    3.8 is very slow and is doing more than what we tell it to do

    Reply in Gemini 3.8 Flash is. SuneraX, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity.

  • Unfavorable
    tends to read all the related and unrelated files into the context compared to Claude Opus 5.5 which starts the editing as soon as the information is adequate

    Comment on "Hacker News". millaker, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 16, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash editing code, compared with Claude Opus 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    at least Flash 3.7/3.8 were both difficult to persuade that they have wrong knowledge cutoff

    Comment on "Hacker News". bender250, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on its knowledge cutoff.

  • Unfavorable
    I think thinking level low is a regression on 3.8 compared to 3.7.

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". simonw, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash at thinking effort high, medium and low via llm-gemini.

  • Favorable
    I tell Antigravity (3.8-flash) to rewrite every code comment and documentation that was changed in the past week. Neither GPT nor Claude can write like a human.

    Comment on "The Goose Programming Language". polski-g, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity rewriting code comments and documentation.

  • Unfavorable
    It isn't in the docs or the changelog, and the status page is green.

    400 request contains an invalid argument when systeminstruction exceeds 85 90k tokens 3 7 3 8 flash 3 1 pro. C10Bjorn, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API generateContent with a long systemInstruction.

  • Unfavorable
    3.8 Flash (and 3.7) are extremely verbose and "curious"

    3 8 flash overeagerness and verbosity tired of it solution inside. Lea, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 8, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity agents.

  • Unfavorable
    On gemini-3.8-flash and gemini-3.7-flash we regularly see the combined total land at almost exactly 2x the cap

    gemini 3 8 flash high does maxoutputtokens include thinking tokens. Madhu_Talluri, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API and Vertex AI with maxOutputTokens and thinkingLevel low.

  • Favorable
    The moment I jumped from Low to Medium, it really didn't keep reading exact same files again and again.

    repeated file reading issue with gemini 3 8 flash 100 working solution reality explained. SuneraX, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash Low and Medium in Antigravity.

  • Unfavorable
    It burns hundreds of extra tokens on forced thinking loops, even for 1-line fixes.

    please bring back gemini 3 7 flash 3 8 flash is unusable for fast coding simple tasks. Arslan4, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash at low thinking for daily coding.

  • Favorable
    3.8 has been completely amazing for me. It is the first Flash model I actually enjoy using.

    gemini 3 6 flash is better than 3 7 and 3 8. rmellis, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for complex tasks, against 3.6 Flash and Pro.

  • Unfavorable
    `gemini-3.8-flash`, `thinking_level: 'minimal'` | 400, not supported by this model

    fix: gemini-3.8-flash is too slow on the free tier for the 30 s target. devTomaszStoklosa, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API, free tier, with a response schema.

Cost 58%

  • Favorable
    well priced when comparing to other models of similar price

    Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.8 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High).

  • Favorable
    Something I appreciate about Gemini Flash is that it's fast, cheap, and competent at things like HTML and JavaScript

    llm-gemini 0.34. Simon Willison, independent software engineer, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in llm-gemini 0.34.

  • Unfavorable
    3.8 uses nearly twice as many tokens as 3.7

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". eis, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) token use on the Artificial Analysis index.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.8 outputs 11k more tokens PER TASK on average in AAII than 3.7 putting it dead last in output tokens per task in the leaderboard.

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". bermudi, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash output tokens per task.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.8 flash is significantly lower than Sol on basically all of them

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". gundmc, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash cost per task against GPT Sol.

  • Favorable
    It also does the evals cheaper and faster than almost all the other models I've tried

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". pampas, HN commenter running the Redactle LLM benchmark, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on the commenter's Redactle puzzle benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.8 Flash which is very cheap and fast too

    Comment on "Grok 4.7". pampas, HN commenter running the Redactle LLM benchmark, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash against Grok 4.7 on the Redactle benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.8 flash comes in as more expensive per task than Sol 56 high according to artificial analysis

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". criley2, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash cost per task on Artificial Analysis.

  • Favorable
    it seems like gemini 3.8 flash is more capable and cheaper

    Comment on "Muse Spark 1.3". israrkhan, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash against Meta Muse Spark 1.3.

  • Favorable
    Gemini gets you similar performance for a cheaper price

    Comment on "Muse Spark 1.3". 1saadcodes, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash against Meta Muse Spark 1.3.

  • Favorable
    gemini flash 3.8 high is both 6 times faster and costs less

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". imtringued, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash high against Claude Opus 5 medium on Artificial Analysis.

  • Unfavorable
    3.8 Flash is considerably more expensive[0]/less token efficient than 3.7 or 3.6

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". XCSme, HN commenter who runs the AI Benchy evals, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the commenter's own benchmark tests.

  • Favorable
    which is an _excellent_ model especially for its price and TPS

    Comment on "GPT-6 Astra". dannyw, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 4, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in coding harnesses against GPT Sol and Astra.

  • Unfavorable
    For personal use almost impossible to justify the cost of 3.8 Flash cost.

    Comment on "DeepSeek launching v4.1 flash cheaper and more capable than v4 pro". bitexploder, HN commenter running personal evals, self-described, Sep 9, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on high reasoning.

  • Favorable
    in the Playground-Mode you don't pay one cent

    Comment on "Ask HN: What default model do you use and why?". gtadesktop1, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Google AI Studio Playground.

  • Favorable
    the cost-benefit is still compelling

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". glimshe, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash with Extended Thinking in the Gemini app.

  • Unfavorable
    Now, is it worth the money vs Astra ? I don't think so.

    Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". w4yai, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for subagent tasks.

  • Favorable
    Even on the $20 Pro plan I've only come down to 10% before the weekly reset.

    Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". lp92, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash implementing plans written by Opus.

  • Unfavorable
    With GitHub Copilot pricing, I have found no practical reason to use Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT 5.6 Luna.

    Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". hocuspocus, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash under GitHub Copilot pricing.

  • Favorable
    almost free (sufficient quota with pro account)

    Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". gcy, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for daily troubleshooting with playwright-cli.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.8 Flash, which has been my benchline for "cheap and smart enough"

    Comment on the HN thread about StepFun Step 5 on OpenRouter. robertlane0, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a baseline model.

  • Unfavorable
    noticeably more expensive in token usage than before

    Post by @Its_lakshya_ai on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Lakshya, self-described poster on tech, AI models and coding, Oct 22, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in late October.

  • Unfavorable
    High qouta usage and slowness with models like 3.8

    Reply in Gemini 3.8 Flash is. SuneraX, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity.

  • Unfavorable
    GPT-6 Luna scored 23-27/30 on the same lecture at $0.03-0.04 per run, against $0.45-0.86 for Gemini.

    Decide the default model: Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna. stegra05, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as the default model in Lectern, blind-reviewed eval rounds on a 72-slide lecture.

  • Favorable
    So it is available, compatible, faster and cheaper on this sample.

    RESEARCH: Evaluate moving market analysis to gemini-3.8-flash. nickhelmet, GitHub issue author, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API with response_schema and function calling.

Speed 61%

Reliability 15%