Roboflow

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, and OCR.

Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.

Open Classification in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 3.7 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 2 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 69.4% to 56.0%.

Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 84.6% (#2 of 30) for Gemini 3.7 Flash.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0016 vs $0.0032 per sample), while Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster (4.7s vs 10.0s per sample).

Gemini 3.6 FlashGemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.6 FlashGemini 3.7 Flash
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUndisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.375
Output $/1M$3.75$1.88
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Video Classification
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
83.1%
84.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0032$0.0016
Avg speed / sample4.73s9.97s
By task
Object Detection
56.0%
$0.0041
69.4%
$0.0024
Counting
82.4%
$0.0032
77.0%
$0.0013
Identification
96.9%
$0.0015
96.9%
$0.0007
OCR
88.4%
$0.0025
86.9%
$0.0014
Data Extraction
94.8%
$0.0015
94.8%
$0.0007
Reasoning (low)
80.1%
$0.0031
82.8%
$0.0011
Reasoning (high)
80.1%
$0.0085
82.1%
$0.0026

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overview

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.

On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.

Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 2 to 2, but Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 83.1% (#5 of 30) for Gemini 3.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 69.4% against 56.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0032. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.7s per inference against 10.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.