Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #8 of 4682.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 54.7–88.0 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #26 of 44$0.160 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #8 of 3860.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 46.7–63.4 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.30Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.75Google AI ↗ · Sep 2, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $3.75Google AI ↗ · Sep 2, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,417.2795% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1414.83704531, 1419.70406968]; votes 122732; rank 116 | 1,494.67100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.8-flash-high; 95% CI [1486.13928353, 1503.20869643]; votes 5076; rank 6 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 72.1793% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Flash · 4,399 output tokens / case | 77.82100% of row best · points · Gemini 3.8 Flash (high thinking) · 13,616 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Gemini 2 5 | Gemini 3 |
| Model | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
| Version | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, code_execution, computer_use, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Gemini 2.5 Flash Capabilities
Gemini 3.8 Flash Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash FAQs
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash is $0.30 and Gemini 3.8 Flash is $0.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 2.5 Flash is $2.50 and Gemini 3.8 Flash is $3.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Gemini 2.5 Flash is 1,049K and Gemini 3.8 Flash is 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 2.5 Flash is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash understand images?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash is documented with image input; Gemini 3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 2.5 Flash is 66K and Gemini 3.8 Flash is 66K.
Do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemini 3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash has 2 sourced provider routes; Gemini 3.8 Flash has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemini 3.8 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.