Flint vs Gemma 3
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Gemma 3 is meaningfully stronger at cost efficiency (90 vs 6).
Specs comparison
| Flint | Gemma 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Springboards | Google DeepMind |
| Type | Closed source | Open source |
| Context window | Not announced | ✓128K tokens (32K for the 1B variant) |
| Input / 1M tokens | Not announced | Free (self-host) |
| Output / 1M tokens | Not announced | Free (self-host) |
| Release date | 2026-04 | 2025-03 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Flint | Gemma 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Novelty Bench | 7/10 | - |
| Intra-Model Similarity | 0.721 | - |
| NoveltyBench | 7.47 | - |
| MATH (27B) | - | 89% |
| MMMU (27B, multimodal) | - | 64.9% |
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 Gemma 3 if...
- →You need an open, self-hostable model with a size to match your hardware
- →Multilingual or multimodal tasks on-prem
- →Privacy-sensitive or offline deployments
- →Fine-tuning on your own data