Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Two Google tiers compared on the figures that decide which one a workload actually needs.
Catalog record checked August 14, 2026; individual provider fields may change.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Budget
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Budget
| Specification | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Tier | Budget | Budget |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input / 1M tokens | Winner: $0.30 | $0.75 |
| Output / 1M tokens | Winner: $2.50 | $3.75 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Parameters | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Reasoning levels | Not verified | low, medium, high |
| Modalities | text, image, video, audio, pdf | text, image, video, audio, pdf |
| Released | July 21, 2026 | August 13, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [high] (2026-08-08) | 37 | Winner: 56 |
Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Pricing tiers: Gemini 3.7 Flash: Introductory paid-tier rates through 2026-12-31. From 2027-01-01 the standard paid rates are $1.50 / $7.50 per million tokens (Gemini API pricing). Cache is $0.075 / MTok through 2026-12-31, then $0.15. Wire calls to `gemini-3.7-flash`. Thinking levels are `low` / `medium` / `high` (API default medium; no MINIMAL).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google's cheapest current Flash-class API tier for high-volume, latency-sensitive agent loops.
Best for
- High-volume agents
- Document pipelines
- Cost-sensitive multimodal work
Watch out
Cheaper than 3.6 and 3.7 Flash, not stronger on hard reasoning — pick it for throughput, not frontier coding.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Google's 2026-08-13 Flash workhorse for coding and agents, three weeks after 3.6 Flash, at an introductory $0.75 / $3.75 per million tokens.
Best for
- Coding agents
- Multimodal agent loops
- High-volume Google API work
Watch out
Intro price doubles on 2027-01-01. DeepSWE 1.1 best-effort (high) is 65.3% at $2.18/task; medium scores 65.5% a few cents cheaper. 66K max output (65,536 tokens). Knowledge cutoff is March 2026 on some domains (January 2025 on others).
Benchmark
DeepSWE 1.1 in context
Only Gemini 3.7 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
Claude Opus 5 [max]
74%
Rows shown
24
Highest published reasoning effort per model (not best Pass@1)
Snapshot date
2026-08-13
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 / tokens / steps; v1 uses published medians.
| # | Model | Pass@1 | Cost / task | Tokens / task | Steps / task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5 [max] | 74% | $11.84 | 118k | 99 |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 Sol [max] | 73% | $8.39 | 60k | 61 |
| 3 | Claude Fable 5 [max] | 70% | $21.63 | 119k | 88 |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Terra [max] | 70% | $4.95 | 72k | 76 |
| 5 | Kimi K3 [max] | 69% | $4.65 | 82k | 98 |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Luna [max] | 67% | $3.03 | 73k | 102 |
| 7 | GPT-5.5 [xhigh] | 67% | $7.23 | 46k | 82 |
| 8 | Grok 4.6 [xhigh] | 67% | $5.50 | 71k | 87 |
| 9 | Gemini 3.7 Flash [high] | 65% | $2.18 | 107k | 125 |
| 10 | DeepSeek V4-Pro [max] | 63% | $0.24 | 106k | 155 |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.8 [max] | 59% | $13.22 | 135k | 120 |
| 12 | Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh] | 58% | $3.73 | 95k | 111 |
| 13 | Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh] | 55% | $3.70 | 99k | 101 |
| 14 | Claude Sonnet 5 [max] | 54% | $26.40 | 214k | 268 |
| 15 | Grok 4.5 [high] | 54% | $2.42 | 36k | 61 |
| 16 | DeepSeek V4-Flash [max] | 53% | $0.10 | 108k | 153 |
| 17 | Muse Spark 1.1 [xhigh] | 53% | $2.36 | 74k | 96 |
| 18 | GPT-5.4 [xhigh] | 52% | $5.65 | 71k | 70 |
| 19 | Gemini 3.6 Flash [high] | 47% | $4.42 | 96k | 117 |
| 20 | GLM 5.2 [max] | 44% | $3.92 | 78k | 129 |
| 21 | Gemini 3.5 Flash [high] | 36% | $3.45 | 76k | 105 |
| 22 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 31% | $2.82 | 59k | 149 |
| 23 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 [high] | 30% | $5.52 | 76k | 134 |
| 24 | Gemini 3.1 Pro [high] | 12% | $2.14 | 28k | 76 |
DeepSWE “Best” picks the highest published reasoning effort per model (not the highest pass rate). Small gaps may not be statistically meaningful — confirm on deepswe.datacurve.ai.
Common questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash cheaper for input?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.30 per million input tokens, against $0.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — roughly 2.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Gemini 3.7 Flash has tiered pricing: Introductory paid-tier rates through 2026-12-31. From 2027-01-01 the standard paid rates are $1.50 / $7.50 per million tokens (Gemini API pricing). Cache is $0.075 / MTok through 2026-12-31, then $0.15. Wire calls to `gemini-3.7-flash`. Thinking levels are `low` / `medium` / `high` (API default medium; no MINIMAL).
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash cheaper for output?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $2.50 per million output tokens, against $3.75 for Gemini 3.7 Flash — roughly 1.5× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate. These are base rates; Gemini 3.7 Flash has tiered pricing: Introductory paid-tier rates through 2026-12-31. From 2027-01-01 the standard paid rates are $1.50 / $7.50 per million tokens (Gemini API pricing). Cache is $0.075 / MTok through 2026-12-31, then $0.15. Wire calls to `gemini-3.7-flash`. Thinking levels are `low` / `medium` / `high` (API default medium; no MINIMAL).
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Both accept about 1.05M tokens of context, so document length will not decide between them.
Should I use Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Both sit in the budget tier, so the choice usually comes down to price and context rather than capability. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite suits high-volume agents; Gemini 3.7 Flash suits coding agents.
Next step
Choosing between them
Tier and workload decide this more reliably than a leaderboard position does.
If both sit in the same tier, the decision usually comes down to context window and output price rather than headline capability — output tokens dominate real bills.
If one is a step up within the same provider, the useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper tier. Most production volume — classification, extraction, summarization — does not.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Muse Code, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.