Flint vs Gemini 3.5
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Gemini 3.5 is meaningfully stronger at multimodal (90 vs 0).
- •Flint is open-weights (free to self-host); Gemini 3.5 is paid API only.
Specs comparison
| Flint | Gemini 3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Springboards | Google DeepMind |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | Not announced | ✓1,048,576 tokens (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) |
| Input / 1M tokens | ✓Not announced | $1.50 |
| Output / 1M tokens | Not announced | $9.00 |
| Release date | 2026-04 | 2026-05 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Flint | Gemini 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Novelty Bench | 7/10 | - |
| Intra-Model Similarity | 0.721 | - |
| NoveltyBench | 7.47 | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (coding) | - | 76.2% |
| MCP Atlas (tool use) | - | 83.6% |
| CharXiv Reasoning (multimodal) | - | 84.2% |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Flint if...
- →When exploring diverse creative directions
- →For early-stage ideation and concept generation
- →When variety and novelty are more important than accuracy
Choose Gemini 3.5 if...
- →You need frontier agent/coding performance without frontier prices
- →Building autonomous agents that make many tool calls
- →High-throughput production workloads that were previously too costly on a Pro model
- →You want a strong default multimodal model with a 1M-token context window