Skip to main content
Kaino.dev
Discover
Evals
News
Academics
Insights
Kaino.dev

Discover, evaluate, and compare AI tools, models, and agents.

Explore

  • Discover
  • Evaluations
  • News
  • Academics
  • Insights

Community

  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Privacy PolicyTerms of Service

© 2026 Kaino.dev. All rights reserved.

Version 1.1.0
Google: Gemini 3.5 Flash · Evaluations · Kaino
Google: Gemini 3.5 Flash logo
model evaluation

Google: Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

Google Gemini 3.5 Flash is a high-efficiency multimodal Gemini API model with Flash-tier speed and cost positioning.

modellead-sourceopenrouter-modelsgooglegeminigemini-apimultimodalcodingreasoningsource:blog.googlegemini-3.5-flashlarge-context
80.8KAINO SCORERecommended
Evaluated Jun 14, 202612 reviews
Website Docs

Scorecard

PricingMultimodalCostDev expTechnicalSpeedCodingReasoningRiskAdoption
  • Multimodal & I/O92
  • Pricing clarity88
  • Developer experience88
  • Technical capability86
  • Speed & availability82
  • Risk & evidence79
  • Adoption signal78
  • Cost effectiveness76
  • Reasoning & knowledge76
  • Coding & agentic71

Kainotomic evaluation

Gemini 3.5 Flash is well supported by official Google and DeepMind sources: model code, 1,048,576-token input limit, 65,536-token output limit, native multimodal inputs, and Gemini API features including function calling, structured outputs, code execution, grounding, caching, Batch API, and thinking. This justifies high technical, multimodal, and developer-experience scores, especially for API products that need long-context multimodal I/O rather than only chat quality. Public coding evidence is positive but not frontier-leading. DeepSWE/DataCurve lists gemini-3.5-flash[medium] at about 28% Pass@1, with reported average cost and time, and evals.report repeats a 28.32% official DeepSWE result. LiveCodeBench evidence is mixed: the official leaderboard excerpt did not visibly list Gemini 3.5 Flash, while LayerLens reports a high Stratix LiveCodeBench result from a third-party evaluation. Google’s own evaluation note references Terminal-Bench 2.1 methodology, but the supplied excerpt does not provide a comparable score here. Pricing is clear from Google and Artificial Analysis at $1.50/M input and $9.00/M output, with batch/flex/priority tiers noted. Artificial Analysis reports strong throughput but high TTFT depending on measurement, so speed is good but not uniformly low-latency. LMArena hard-prompts rank 22 with 1492±8 and 6,785 votes is useful public preference signal, not a substitute for task-specific evals. Overall evidence quality is good, with remaining caution around third-party benchmark comparability and incomplete official leaderboard coverage.

Strengths

  • Official Google/DeepMind documentation and model card support existence, limits, multimodal design, and API capabilities.
  • Very large 1M-token context and 64K-token output limit for Flash-tier workflows.
  • Strong Gemini API feature surface: function calling, structured outputs, code execution, grounding, caching, Batch API, and thinking.
  • Clear official pricing with third-party price/speed corroboration.
  • Meaningful public preference signal on LMArena hard prompts.

Caveats

  • DeepSWE result around 28% Pass@1 indicates useful but not top-tier coding-agent performance.
  • Official LiveCodeBench excerpt did not visibly include Gemini 3.5 Flash; third-party LayerLens result should be treated cautiously.
  • Terminal-Bench evidence confirms evaluation methodology/source presence but no comparable score was supplied in the excerpt.
  • Artificial Analysis speed reports differ between model page and article, so latency/throughput should be validated for target workload.