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
Model family by Google
Gemini Flash
Google's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.
Where it sits in Google's lineup
- Gemini ProGoogle's Gemini family for complex reasoning and multimodal work.Gemini 4 Argon
- Gemini FlashGoogle's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.This model
- GemmaGoogle's open-weight Gemma models, built from the technology behind Gemini.Gemma 4 31B
- Made by
- Releases
- 2 tracked
- Current release
- Gemini 3.8 Flash
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Gemini 3.8 Flash
Suggested comparisons
Gemini 3.8 Flash is the newest Gemini Flash release. Add its earlier releases to see how the line moved.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
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
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%reported by GoogleBenchmark: OSWorld 2.0, partial score, release before v2026.08.08, batch tool calls. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.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.
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%Hallucination rate 55.1% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%SpeechMap tested it through OpenRouter with reasoning on and counted 11.7% of requests denied and 1.8% evaded.0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against it
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run
- Gemini 3.8 FlashNot yet published by Google or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
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.
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
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
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | 19.7% | Gemini 3.8 FlashEffort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. | Vals.ai | Oct 24, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 56.6% | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 68.4% | Effort: high. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Sep 2, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 95.4% | Effort: high. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Sep 2, 2026 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 47.8% | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 59.9% | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 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 Google | Sep 2, 2026 |
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 81.3% | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 85.6% | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 50.5%Hallucination rate 55.1% in the same run (lower is better) | Gemini 3.8 Flash (High)Effort: high. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% 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 it | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | SpeechMap.AI | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Instruction following | MultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run | Not 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.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 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 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 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
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- 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
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- 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
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- 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
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- 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
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- 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
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Releases
Every Gemini Flash release we track, newest first.
- Gemini 3.8 FlashA Gemini Flash release for long-horizon software engineering, agents, and enterprise workflows.
- Gemini 3.6 FlashA previous-generation Gemini Flash model that Google keeps available for production use, with text, image, video, audio and PDF input, a 1,048,576-token input limit and 65,536 output tokens. Google points to Gemini 3.8 Flash as its newest Flash model and has announced no shutdown date.
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.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Axis | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only 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%
- Favorable
amongst the leading models in intelligence
Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.8 Flash. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High).
- Favorable
it built this , which is certainly a cool thing in HTML!
llm-gemini 0.34. Simon Willison, independent software engineer, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in llm-gemini 0.34.
- Favorable
With 3.7 I felt I could just not use 3.1 Pro at all and 3.8 seems even better
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". dismalaf, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the commenter's own tests on launch day.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash is top of the Redactle LLM benchmark
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
still not as good as Gemini 3.8 Flash
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
it failed spectacularly and also halucinated the server i/o limits
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". algoth1, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (high) reviewing a website for CPU and RAM use.
- Favorable
gemini 3.8 flash is more capable
Comment on "Muse Spark 1.3". israrkhan, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash against Meta Muse Spark 1.3.
- Unfavorable
How it can be that bad? Gemini 3.1 Pro model works fine in this case btw.
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". maxnevermind, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash at gemini.google.com, two consecutive prompts.
- Unfavorable
Claude could always note much more problems in Codex's plan and implementation than Gemini could - the ratio is like 10:1
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". wwind123, HN commenter who runs Claude, Codex and Gemini review loops, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a plan and code reviewer next to Claude Opus 5 and Codex.
- Favorable
these few days the Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) has been catching much more problems in code reviews than before
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". wwind123, HN commenter who runs Claude, Codex and Gemini review loops, self-described, Sep 6, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) as a code reviewer.
- Unfavorable
it generates non-working code. basically unusable.
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". bbstats, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for code generation, launch week.
- Unfavorable
it's nowhere near close to Sol/Astra
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.
- Favorable
I feel like it did pretty well, and made the point more clearly than either the original or Orwell's rework (Gemini 3.8 Flash)
Comment on "The revolt of the reader". rpdillon, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 6, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash rewording a passage.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 flash and gemini 3.1 pro seem to lead across the other LLMs
Comment on "Benchmarked how the latest LLMs perform on expert level medical questions". toshvelaga, HN commenter who built a MedXpertQA leaderboard, self-described, Sep 9, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on MedXpertQA medical questions.
- Unfavorable
Try and use gemini 3.8 yourself for any real world work and you'll see it's terrible.
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". bdlowery, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Gemini CLI.
- Favorable
I've had it make crazy progress on compiler-like problems that previous models including Opus simply failed at
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". tucnak, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on the Ultra plan.
- Favorable
It performs better than any other model except Fable.
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". obilgic, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the commenter's agents.
- Unfavorable
I found Gemini 3.8 Flash mid.
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". astrostl, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity (agy).
- Unfavorable
3.8 Flash just mindlessly repeated whatever odds were live on Polymarket
Comment on "Predictive intelligence to anticipate anything.". A_D_E_P_T, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash answering a prediction question.
- Favorable
I can't think of a better general purpose model than 3.8 flash right now
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". WarmWash, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a general-purpose model.
- Unfavorable
leading to an uncomfortably high number of incorrect/poor replies
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
Instead of simply delegating tasks it would invent additional requirements and implementation details it knew nothing about
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
transforms the resulting text through Gemini 3.8 Flash for readability, and it works
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". flyinglizard, HN commenter running an agentic insights system, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as an output stage for readability.
- Favorable
this model *is* able to do useful things ! Complex things.
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.
- Unfavorable
It's very fast, but wildly inaccurate.
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". Gareth321, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) on real research problems against Opus and Sol.
- Favorable
I've found 3.8 flash to circle back to root issues even at the conceptual level
Comment on "GPT-6 Sol and Luna". spockz, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for Go programming.
- Favorable
For me it works really good
Comment on "Best LLM for every budget, updated daily". pelagicAustral, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) on a subscription plan.
- Unfavorable
in real world testing, I found DeepSeek flash to perform far better at a much lower price
Comment on "Best LLM for every budget, updated daily". krmmalik, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding against DeepSeek Flash.
- Favorable
Accuracy winner was Gemini 3.8 flash
Comment on "GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price". pdntspa, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on a large text and image extraction comparison.
- Favorable
it's been working great
Comment on "GPT-6.1 Sol replaces GPT-6 Sol after just 7 days, with near-Astra intelligence". lp92, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding on the $20 plan.
- Favorable
3.8 Flash does really well for writing code as long as you give it a good design and plan to follow
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". lp92, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash implementing plans written by Opus.
- Unfavorable
it gives me the most hallucinations out of the major models
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". gottorf, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for general research.
- Unfavorable
3.8 Flash suffers from far more hallucinations than 3.1 Pro
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". ofseed, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for chat against Gemini 3.1 Pro.
- Unfavorable
it's never turned out well for Flash against GPT Sol or Astra
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". ipsod, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding against GPT Sol and Astra.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash is surprisingly good
Comment on "Research Firm Calls Anthropic's IPO 'Unprecedented Test of Investor Gullibity'". api, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding.
- Favorable
Its fast and good, even if it is not the absolute SOTA at coding benchmarks it really is very good.
Comment on "IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem". mattlondon, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a daily driver for coding.
- Unfavorable
after basically giving up on 3.8 flash for most things
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". dgacmu, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the Gemini app on a Pro subscription.
- Favorable
it seems to be doing worse than 3.8 flash in some coding tasks
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". Revanche1367, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash against Gemini 4 Argon on mid-sized coding tasks.
- Favorable
the code has been perfect
Comment on "Free Pascal compiler now supports dynamic packages". djriley, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the web app for Free Pascal work.
- Unfavorable
The hallucinations are INSANE
Post by @Its_lakshya_ai on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Lakshya, self-described poster on tech, AI models and coding, Oct 18, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash after the Gemini 4 Argon release.
- Favorable
literally better than claud and Argon and works faster with less errors on big tasks
Post by @wolfloverdv on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Wolf, self-described tech lover and reverse engineer, Oct 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on medium in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
Flash over-claims & fakes results, missing details so everything runs twice.
Post by @StructZeroApp on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Struct Zero, self-described AI software engineering platform, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash-High in the Antigravity IDE.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 is so goated for everything related to frontend, ui,ux
Post by @DAAVILE_fx on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Ernesto Davila Tirado, self-described builder of algo trading and LLM infrastructure, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity for frontend work.
- Unfavorable
It is worse than Qwen3.8-27B at the moment.
Post by @erenulu_ on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Eren Ulu, self-described former engineer running AI experiments, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in late October.
- Favorable
its really doing the job quita good
Post by @FghjJhg86158226 on Gemini 3.8 Flash. FghjJhg86158226, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in late October.
- Favorable
even Flash High beats it by a mile
Severe slowdowns and frequent 503 errors on Gemini Flash 3.8 during specific hours. Freya_Smith, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash High in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
hallucinates so much that it's impossible to work with
Gemini 3.8 Flash is. Herbert_Amaro, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on Google AI Pro.
- Unfavorable
mainly for answers that bring in material the lecture does not contain
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
Now, 3.8 gets them perfectly and I almost never need Pro anymore.
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.
Tool use and structured output 47%
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 flash seems to be especially low efficiency in tool calling
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 tool calling.
- Favorable
It has been driving the swarm to produce steady outcome
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
It'll just go in circles reading the same file 20 times for no reason making hundreds of tool calls for a simple change.
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". bdlowery, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Gemini CLI.
- Favorable
it wrote a Python program and directly manipulated the STL geometries. It went perfectly.
Comment on "Benchmark: CadQuery vs. OpenSCAD for agentic CAD work". evilduck, HN commenter doing hobby CAD, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity editing STL parts.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 flash has been incredible for our agents
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". obilgic, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the commenter's agents.
- Unfavorable
The majority of the time it doesn't use any tools and infers things from its parametric knowledge.
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". Gareth321, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for research with web tools.
- Favorable
gemini 3.8 flash in anrigravitiy oneshoted the descryption in about 45min non-steered run
Comment on "OpenAI GPT–6 Astra breaks Enigma message that has resisted solution since 2005". podgorniy, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on an Enigma decryption task.
- Favorable
it proceeded to attach GDB to my GPU driver, reverse-engineer the kernel queue ioctl interface, and author an LD_PRELOAD C shim
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". taylorfinley, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in agy fixing ROCm on a Strix Halo.
- Unfavorable
it doom looped while executing a coding task and I stopped using it then
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon (High): Intelligence, Performance and Price Analysis". anuragdaram, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on a coding task.
- Favorable
3.8 Flash is a great orchestrater
Post by @RustyOnLife on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Rusty Jordan, self-described UX, dev and ML/AI hobbyist, Oct 19, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as an orchestrator next to Gemini 4 Argon.
- Unfavorable
Even simple tasks now trigger pointless tool calls and overcomplicated workflows.
Post by @patientone_io on Gemini 3.8 Flash. patientone, self-described indie builder and homelab tinkerer, Oct 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on the paid Pro plan in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
gemini-3.8-flash decides not to call a tool as soon as the user message contains a passage of reflective, first-person prose
Gemini 3.8 Flash: tool calls are suppressed when the prompt contains reflective first-person text (regression vs 3.5). MikTs, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 5, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API with structured output and a save_note tool, thinking_level LOW.
- Unfavorable
It even falls into continuous file reading loops
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.
- Favorable
Structured JSON with `response_schema` | ✅ 5.4s, all 5 fields
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.
- Unfavorable
The first action is executed, but the follow-up Vertex request fails with HTTP 400 and the task stops.
Vertex Gemini 3.8 Flash fails after the first ARTEMIS tool-calling turn. arislee1979-afk, GitHub issue author, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Vertex AI gemini-3.8-flash in the ARTEMIS Flash mobile workflow.
Long context 38%
- Unfavorable
would not trust it for long agentic tasks
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". zuzululu, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding, compared with GPT Sol and Claude Fable.
- Favorable
attach all project files and tell him what you need. He reads the files you attached and helps you like the old chat
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
On ultra plan you can have it going for hours, and make incremental progress
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". tucnak, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on the Ultra plan.
- Unfavorable
but would not use for long horizon
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
Even Gemini 3.8 Flash has better long-context reasoning than Grok.
Post by @SayantikaSays on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Sayantika, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding against Grok.
- Unfavorable
Almost everything had been stubbed out by 3.8, and none of it was properly integrated into the codebase.
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". eluusive, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash doing a major refactor of a codebase.
- Favorable
it is also a good at solving issues in a well-defined environment like an enterprise codebase
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". hollars, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on an enterprise codebase.
- Unfavorable
My chat currently contains around 600,000 tokens, so it should be well within that limit. As before, Flash 3 works perfectly fine with this context size, while Flash 3.6 and 3.8 don't work at all.
flash models fail with a 400k token conversation despite 1m context window. Derta_Derty, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the AI Studio Playground with a 400k to 600k token conversation.
- Unfavorable
gemini-3.5-flash and 3.5-flash-lite accept a 125k-token systemInstruction; 3.7-flash, 3.8-flash and 3.1-pro-preview reject it
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.
- Favorable
our team gave the model full-stack repository access via Google Antigravity to perform an exhaustive architectural, security, and performance audit
case study using gemini 3 8 flash in google antigravity as an autonomous cto to audit harden and deploy a live stack on gcp. Sabrina_Swenson, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity with full-stack repository access.
- Unfavorable
It completely fails at long-horizon tasks. When given a codebase with deeply nested dependencies, it gets immediate "amnesia".
critical removing gemini 3 1 pro and locking argon behind ultra tier makes antigravity ide completely useless for pro subscribers. Veltraxen_Studios, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash High in Antigravity on a multi-module codebase.
- Unfavorable
not close to good enough for making very precise and specific features work inside an existing codebase and not break a bunch of stuff
critical removing gemini 3 1 pro and locking argon behind ultra tier makes antigravity ide completely useless for pro subscribers. Jack_Shi, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on feature work in an existing codebase, AI Ultra plan.
- Unfavorable
Flash doesn't retain anything too, so reask the exact same question again, you're good to go for 15/20min waiting again
critical removing gemini 3 1 pro and locking argon behind ultra tier makes antigravity ide completely useless for pro subscribers. LeSpatiocorne, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash answering questions about a small web app codebase.
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%
- Favorable
At 129 tokens per second, Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) is notably fast
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.
- Favorable
still way faster than any other LLM I've used
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". dismalaf, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the commenter's own tests on launch day.
- Favorable
At least the tokens are really fast.
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". WASDx, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash medium against 3.7 high.
- Favorable
though 3.8 is just a bit faster
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
the latency progress is incredible. For my tasks the latency is reduced by ~40%
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". or1gaminal, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for lexical analysis.
- 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
so response time is slower oferall
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
I think the only faster acessible model currently is Gemini 3.8 Flash which is around 250-280 tok/s
Comment on "Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent". bel8, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 8, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash output speed against Muse Spark 1.3.
- Favorable
thoroughly prefer it to most Pro-class models. It's really fast
Comment on "Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases". tucnak, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 12, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on the Ultra plan.
- Favorable
It's crazy fast and very compute light
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". WarmWash, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash as a general-purpose model.
- Unfavorable
I've noticed antigravity become significantly slower over the last week or so
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". qudat, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 15, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity, mid September.
- Favorable
It's clear that the model is designed for speed over accuracy.
Comment on "Gemini 3.8 Live and 3.8 Live Extended Thinking". Gareth321, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) on real research problems against Opus and Sol.
- Favorable
I use it for golang, and it is fantastic. Incredibly fast.
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 is fast and good enough
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". smartbit, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in the agy CLI.
- Favorable
it's fast and almost free
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". gcy, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for daily troubleshooting with playwright-cli.
- Favorable
where it's nice because it's so fast
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". ipsod, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 2, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding against GPT Sol and Astra.
- Favorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash has been a joy to use in comparison (and so fast!)
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.
- Favorable
I'll stick with 3.8 Flash thanks to its high output speed
Comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". ssernikk, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for fast iteration.
- Unfavorable
Sometimes simple responses take minutes
Comment on "IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem". jaccola, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in October.
- Unfavorable
3.8 Flash feels slower, less responsive
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.
- Favorable
flash is good and fast
Post by @DAAVILE_fx on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Ernesto Davila Tirado, self-described builder of algo trading and LLM infrastructure, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity for frontend work.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash is taking forever for prompts
Gemini 3.8 Flash Taking Forever in AI Studio. Joshua_Narinesingh, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Google AI Studio Build mode, free plan.
- Unfavorable
Flash's speed isn't even 1/10th of what it usually is. A 2-minute task takes over 20 minutes
Severe slowdowns and frequent 503 errors on Gemini Flash 3.8 during specific hours. Freya_Smith, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash High in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 in Antigravity is too slow!
Antigravity Gemini 3.8 Flash - low; Extreme performance issues. Dav_H, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash Low in Antigravity v2.23.0, Pro subscription.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 is so slow
Gemini 3.8 Flash is. Herbert_Amaro, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity on Google AI Pro.
- Favorable
I get 200+tps at all times, and sub second ttfb
Reply in Gemini 3.8 Flash is. oli_hlmpn, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
Even a simple prompt like Reply with exactly: pong takes 60–70 seconds in the CLI
OMG what is going on with Gemini 3.8 Flash? Extremely slow responses and massive latency. ovsmar, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash-low in the Antigravity CLI and IDE, Google AI Pro.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash has become extremely slow in Antigravity. This affects even a one-line prompt.
Gemini 3.8 Flash Low has ~57s TTFT in Antigravity 2.24.0. flash_latency26, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash Low in Antigravity 2.24.0 on Windows.
- Unfavorable
It was also the slowest model on that lecture.
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.
- Unfavorable
The default model `gemini-3.8-flash` (`DEFAULT_LLM_MODEL` in `server/config.ts`) is too slow on the free tier.
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.
Reliability 15%
- Favorable
because of higher tok/s and better rate limits
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.
- Unfavorable
hit the limit in two hours tops... last week was the first time I hit the weekly limit and had to wait 4 days
Comment on "Best LLM for every budget, updated daily". pelagicAustral, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) on a subscription plan.
- Favorable
I don'thave to worry aboutweekly limits even on the $20 plan.
Comment on "GPT-6.1 Sol replaces GPT-6 Sol after just 7 days, with near-Astra intelligence". lp92, HN commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash for coding on the $20 plan.
- Unfavorable
I get rate limited after sending a single message
Comment on "IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem". jaccola, HN commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in October.
- Unfavorable
my 3.8 Flash has been acting like it got nerfed overnight
Post by @Its_lakshya_ai on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Lakshya, self-described poster on tech, AI models and coding, Oct 18, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash after the Gemini 4 Argon release.
- Unfavorable
What have you done to Gemini 3.8 Flash lately?
Post by @patientone_io on Gemini 3.8 Flash. patientone, self-described indie builder and homelab tinkerer, Oct 24, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on the paid Pro plan in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3.8 Flash did not degrade. It died.
Post by @erenulu_ on Gemini 3.8 Flash. Eren Ulu, self-described former engineer running AI experiments, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in late October.
- Unfavorable
spit out worse scenes from the exact same prompt later is the first time a model felt like it was rotting in production
Post by @shadowaguy on Gemini 3.8 Flash. ShadowAguy, self-described AI researcher, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash on the same prompt over time.
- Favorable
gemini 3.8 flash is cooking for me unlimted quota nearly
Post by @FghjJhg86158226 on Gemini 3.8 Flash. FghjJhg86158226, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in late October.
- Unfavorable
frequently gets stuck in retryable errors over and over again
Gemini 3.8 Flash Taking Forever in AI Studio. Joshua_Narinesingh, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Google AI Studio Build mode, free plan.
- Unfavorable
repeated HTTP 503 Service Unavailable responses were followed by HTTP 429 daily quota exhaustion
Gemini API 503 errors appear to consume Free Tier RPD, leading to 429 quota exhaustion. Hector_Herrera_Yuste, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 24, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini Developer API from Google Apps Script, free tier.
- Unfavorable
UNAVAILABLE (code 503): No capacity available for model gemini-3.8-flash-high on the server
Severe slowdowns and frequent 503 errors on Gemini Flash 3.8 during specific hours. Freya_Smith, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 25, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash High in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
Even with retries and proper backoff, requests frequently fail again, causing incomplete outputs, increased processing time, and unreliable production workloads
Continuously experiencing 429 and 503 errors in Gemini Models. indranil_kundu, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash through the Gemini API for batch processing.
- Unfavorable
The Gemini 3.8 Flash model is not working properly in Antigravity. I keep getting the error
Gemini 3.8 Flash model is not working properly in Antigravity. Meshan_Miranda, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash in Antigravity.
- Unfavorable
UNAVAILABLE (code 503): No capacity available for model gemini-3.8-flash-high on the server, retrying in 4s
Gemini 3.8 Flash Low has ~57s TTFT in Antigravity 2.24.0. flash_latency26, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash Low in Antigravity 2.24.0 on Windows.
- Unfavorable
We get 429 Exhausted almost all the time.
Gemini 3.8-flash 429-Exhausted. cloud_LNU, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash through Vertex AI in a production order pipeline.
- Unfavorable
My application receives HTTP 429 when requesting Gemini feedback.
Gemini 3.8 Flash returns HTTP 429 on Free tier, but Usage shows no data. Survi_Nikitha, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash through the Gemini Developer API with google-genai 2.32.0, free tier.
- Unfavorable
an initial model call succeeded, but a continuation after external web searches failed with 429
Gemini 3.8 Flash Free Tier: repeated 429 RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED without quota details. Kendo777, user on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. gemini-3.8-flash through the Gemini API v1beta streamGenerateContent, free tier, Hermes client.
- Unfavorable
4 complete, 10 MAX_TOKENS, 2 HTTP 503, 1 HTTP 429
Stabilize Gemini 3.8 Flash and deliver reproducible Exa-assisted evaluations. dprada, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 10, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash run through the Gemini API, free tier.
- Unfavorable
with flash latest and flash 3.8 it is showing gemini could not be reached or gemini timeout
[Bug] gemini 3.8 flash and flash latest not translating. Ken7600, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.8 Flash translating lyrics in the Vitrine mod, thinking low.