Model comparison
Base 1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Base44 against Google, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.
Recorded profile verification October 2, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Insufficient data — see receipts below
Base44
Base 1
Balanced
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Balanced
| Specification | Base 1 | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Provider | Base44 | |
| Tier | ||
| Tier | Balanced | Balanced |
| Context window | ||
| Context window | Not verifiedUnverified | 1.05M |
| Max output | ||
| Max output | Not verifiedUnverified | 66K |
| Input / 1M tokens | ||
| Input / 1M tokens | Not verifiedUnverified | $0.75 |
| Output / 1M tokens | ||
| Output / 1M tokens | Not verifiedUnverified | $3.75 |
| Weights | ||
| Weights | Not verifiedUnverified | Closed |
| Parameters | ||
| Parameters | Not verifiedUnverified | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Reasoning levels | ||
| Reasoning levels | Not verifiedUnverified | low, medium, high |
| Modalities | ||
| Modalities | text | text, image, video, audio, pdf |
| API model id | ||
| API model id | Not verifiedUnverified | gemini-3.8-flash |
| Released | ||
| Released | Not verifiedUnverified | September 2, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [high] · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-10-01 | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [high] · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-10-01 | Not verifiedUnverified | 41 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-09-02 | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-09-02 | Not verifiedUnverified | 89.4 |
| HLE-Verified · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-09-02 | ||
| HLE-Verified · source date Gemini 3.8 Flash: 2026-09-02 | Not verifiedUnverified | 54.9 |
Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.
- Source date2026-10-01Artificial Analysis (Gemini 3.8 Flash (high))
Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.
Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check the cited source and its date.
- Source date2026-09-02Google official blog and methodology (vendor; full 1,811-item HLE-Verified set) (Full 1,811-item verified/revised set; differs from original HLE and AA text-only HLE)
Expert reasoning on the verified and revised Humanity's Last Exam question set.
UnknownA distinct question set from original HLE and Artificial Analysis's text-only HLE. Shared dataset and publisher alone do not establish matching model effort, tools, filtering and run configuration; no quality winner is inferred without that evidence.
- Source date2026-09-02Google primary evaluation table and methodology (vendor-reported) (Vendor evaluation; Terminus-2 harness; exact run date not published)
Agentic terminal work: multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.
Comparable with caveatNot comparable with Terminal-Bench 3.0 or 4.0 (different task sets) or v1; harness configuration (container, time limits) also shifts results.
Pricing tiers
Base 1: Uses Base44 message credits. Model-specific cost is shown under Credits Used per message; no direct token-rate API price is verified.
Gemini 3.8 Flash: Intro Standard $0.75/$3.75 per MTok through December 31, 2026; $1.50/$7.50 from January 1, 2027. Output includes thinking tokens. Cached input $0.075, rising to $0.15; storage $0.50/MTok-hour, rising to $1. Batch/Flex input/output are $0.375/$1.875, rising to $0.75/$3.75. Priority $1.35/$6.75, rising to $2.70/$13.50. Grounding tools have separate charges and quotas; free-tier limits differ from paid.
Base 1
Base44's first in-house model is offered in its app-building chat, with the publisher describing it as trained on platform building patterns.
Best for
- Evaluating app-building prompts within Base44
- Comparing builder output in an eligible Base44 account
Watch out
No direct inference endpoint, stable API ID, downloadable checkpoint/license, exact context/output limits, parameter count or comparable numeric benchmark is verified. The founder announcement and product changelog do not establish a reliable day-level release date in captured page metadata. The manual model-selection guide requires Builder or higher, while the changelog uses broader all-plan language; verify account access. Publisher fit claims are not independent quality results.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's multimodal Flash model for long-horizon software engineering and agent workflows, with current introductory API pricing through December 31, 2026.
Best for
- Agentic coding at scale
- Mid-difficulty engineering
- Multimodal pipelines
Watch out
Intro rates and cache-storage prices double January 1, 2027. Google says 3.8 can use more tokens at higher effort; 3.7 remains supported for efficiency-first workloads. Minimal thinking errors. Computer use is Preview; native audio/image generation and Live API are unsupported. Restricted Flash Cyber is a separate endpoint with no public rate confirmed.
Benchmark
DeepSWE 1.1 in context
Only Gemini 3.8 Flash has a published DeepSWE 1.1 result. It is shown against the wider field, with cost per completed task alongside the score.
Local leader
GPT-6 Astra [xhigh]
74.1%
Rows shown
28
Best source-matched Pass@1 per model
Snapshot date
2026-10-01
Mirrored from deepswe.datacurve.ai
Better is toward the top-right (higher pass rate, lower cost). X-axis is reversed to match DeepSWE’s public chart. v1.1 uses average cost, output tokens and steps. Legacy v1 transcriptions are excluded here until an exact primary receipt is retained.
| # | Model | Pass@1 | Cost / task | Tokens / task | Steps / task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra [xhigh] | 74.1% | $4.43 | 30k | 29 |
| 2 | Gemini 3.8 Flash [high] | 73.8% | $2.36 | 143k | 166 |
| 3 | Claude Opus 5 [max] | 73.6% | $11.84 | 118k | 99 |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Sol [max] | 72.7% | $8.39 | 60k | 61 |
| 5 | Claude Fable 5 [xhigh] | 69.9% | $13.41 | 80k | 68 |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Terra [max] | 69.6% | $4.95 | 72k | 76 |
| 7 | GLM 5.3 [max] | 69.0% | $3.99 | 80k | 124 |
| 8 | Kimi K3 [max] | 68.5% | $4.65 | 82k | 98 |
| 9 | Grok 4.6 [medium] | 67.5% | $3.45 | 50k | 70 |
| 10 | GPT-5.6 Luna [max] | 67.2% | $3.03 | 73k | 102 |
| 11 | GPT-5.5 [xhigh] | 67.0% | $7.23 | 46k | 82 |
| 12 | Gemini 3.7 Flash [medium] | 65.5% | $2.03 | 94k | 117 |
| 13 | GLM 5.3 Flash [max] | 63.4% | $0.48 | 73k | 123 |
| 14 | DeepSeek V4-Pro [max] | 62.8% | $0.24 | 106k | 155 |
| 15 | Claude Opus 4.8 [max] | 59.0% | $13.22 | 135k | 120 |
| 16 | Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh] | 57.5% | $3.73 | 95k | 111 |
| 17 | Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh] | 54.9% | $3.70 | 99k | 101 |
| 18 | Claude Sonnet 5 [max] | 53.8% | $26.40 | 214k | 268 |
| 19 | Grok 4.5 [high] | 53.8% | $2.42 | 36k | 61 |
| 20 | DeepSeek V4-Flash [max] | 53.3% | $0.10 | 108k | 153 |
| 21 | Muse Spark 1.1 [xhigh] | 53.3% | $2.36 | 74k | 96 |
| 22 | GPT-5.4 [xhigh] | 51.8% | $5.65 | 71k | 70 |
| 23 | Gemini 3.6 Flash [high] | 46.7% | $4.42 | 96k | 117 |
| 24 | GLM 5.2 [max] | 43.8% | $3.92 | 78k | 129 |
| 25 | Gemini 3.5 Flash [high] | 36.1% | $3.45 | 76k | 105 |
| 26 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 30.5% | $2.82 | 59k | 149 |
| 27 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 [high] | 29.9% | $5.52 | 76k | 134 |
| 28 | Gemini 3.1 Pro [high] | 11.7% | $2.14 | 28k | 76 |
“Best per model” shows each model’s highest source-matched Pass@1 in this capture; switch to all effort levels to see every retained configuration. Efforts differ across models, so this view is not a comparison at matched effort. The source was generated September 22 and captured October 1. Small gaps may not be statistically meaningful — confirm on deepswe.datacurve.ai.
When the cheaper one wins
One of these rows is missing a verified output price, so this page will not name a cheaper winner. Run the model picker against the actual job instead of guessing.
Run the model pickerEvidence confidence: Insufficient data
How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better. Hard limitations apply: missing pricing; evidence too sparse.
- Pricing incomplete — No verified token pricing for Base 1.
- 0/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: context window, max output, release date, parameter count, reasoning levels.
- No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
- Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 25 days ago.
- Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.
Source receipts
Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.
- Base 1: Product model access and modes (accessed 2026-10-02)
- Base 1: Publisher model announcement (accessed 2026-10-02)
- Base 1: Product rollout changelog (accessed 2026-10-02)
- Base 1: Credit billing (accessed 2026-10-02)
- Gemini 3.8 Flash: Google primary profile — whole-record source check October 1 (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Gemini 3.8 Flash: Gemini current API pricing and cache-storage tiers (accessed 2026-10-01)
- Gemini 3.8 Flash: Google — Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber (accessed 2026-09-03)
- Gemini 3.8 Flash: Gemini API pricing (gemini-3.8-flash $0.75/$3.75 intro) (accessed 2026-09-03)
- Gemini 3.8 Flash: Datacurve DeepSWE 1.1 — 3.8 Flash high 73.8%, $2.36/task; Google separately self-reports 73.7% (accessed 2026-09-03)
Related comparisons
- Amazon Nova 2 Lite vs Base 1
- Amazon Nova 2 Lite vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Amazon Nova 2 Pro vs Base 1
- Amazon Nova 2 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Base 1 vs Claude Sonnet 5
- Base 1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Diving deeper on one model? Base 1 · Gemini 3.8 Flash
Common questions
Base 1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Should I use Base 1 or Gemini 3.8 Flash?
Next step
Choosing between them
The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.
These two models match on every verified catalog figure — the decision comes down to provider preference, availability, and workload fit rather than published numbers.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.