Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 54.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 45 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 45 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Grok 4.6 in 3 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.6 leads 39.4 to 24.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 27.5% for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 65.3% for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $9 for Gemini 3.5 Flash.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 54.2 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 500K |
| Max output | 66K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.50 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $9 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 37.4% | 67.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1499 | 1617 |
| SciCode | 53.1% | 56.5% |
| WeirdML | 62.6% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1492 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 911.02 | 1,508 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.3% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 27.5% | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,396 | 9,047 |
| GBAEval | 6.7% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | 76.7% | 75.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.6% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 13.1% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 50% | 40% |
| EBR-Bench | 4.8% | 30.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | 34% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 47.1% | 48.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.46 | 156.44 |
| EnigmaEval | 25.4% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 58.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 62.8% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 31% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1504 | 1423 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 39% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 14.6% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 92.8% | 94% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 66.2% | 49.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1495 | 1467 |
Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1310 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Document | 1463 | 1452 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1476 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1526 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1490 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1492 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1486 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1451 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1493 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1467 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1482 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1470 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1087 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 54.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.5 Flash lists at $1.50 and $9.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 49.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.6 share?
45 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.