Head-to-head comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs. Grok 4.7

Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.

shared result series: 18
distinct benchmarks: 18
latest retrieval: 2026-09-29

First modelSecond model

Specifications

General specifications

Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.

Specifications for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.7
Attribute	Gemini 3.5 Flash	Grok 4.7
Provider	Google	xAI
Released	May 19, 2026	Sep 21, 2026
Availability	Active	Active
Model type	Proprietary	Proprietary
Parameters	Not published	Not published
Architecture	Not published	Not published
Context window	1,048,576 tokens	500,000 tokens
Knowledge cutoff	Not published	May 2026
Technical sources	Model	Model, Context

Pricing

API pricing compared

The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.

API pricing for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.7
Price type	Gemini 3.5 Flash	Grok 4.7
API input	$1.5	$2 ≤200K / $4 >200K
API output	$9	$6 ≤200K / $12 >200K
Cache read	$0.15	$0.5 ≤200K / $1 >200K
Cache write (5 min.)	Not listed	Not listed
Cache write (1 hr.)	Not listed	Not listed
Price verified	09/22/2026 Source	09/23/2026 Source

Gemini 3.5 FlashGrok 4.7

API inputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Gemini 3.5 Flash$1.5

Grok 4.7$2

API outputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Gemini 3.5 Flash$9

Grok 4.7$6

Cache readUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Gemini 3.5 Flash$0.15

Grok 4.7$0.5

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Pricing by provider

Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.

Provider pricing for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.7
Model	Provider	Purchase route and tariff	Input per 1M tokens	Output per 1M tokens	Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash	Google	Direct from developerStandard API	$1.5	$9	Source09/22/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global	$1.5	$9	Source10/07/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global/flex	Lowest listed price: $0.75	Lowest listed price: $4.5	Source10/07/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global/priority	$2.7	$16.2	Source10/07/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/us	$1.65	$9.9	Source10/07/2026
	Google AI Studio	Via OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio	$1.5	$9	Source10/07/2026
	Google AI Studio	Via OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio/flex	Lowest listed price: $0.75	Lowest listed price: $4.5	Source10/07/2026
	Google AI Studio	Via OpenRoutergoogle-ai-studio/priority	$2.7	$16.2	Source10/07/2026
Grok 4.7	xAI	Direct from developerUp to 200,000 context tokens	Lowest listed price: $2	Lowest listed price: $6	Source09/23/2026
	xAI	Direct from developerAbove 200,000 context tokens	$4	$12	Source09/23/2026
	xAI	Via OpenRouterxai	Lowest listed price: $2	Lowest listed price: $6	Source10/07/2026
	xAI	Via OpenRouterxai/priority	$4	$12	Source10/07/2026
	xAI	Via OpenRouterxai/zdr	Lowest listed price: $2	Lowest listed price: $6	Source10/07/2026
	xAI	Via OpenRouterxai/zdr/priority	$4	$12	Source10/07/2026
	xAI	Via OpenRouterxai/zdr/us	$2.2	$6.6	Source10/07/2026

Performance

Shared benchmarks

Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.

Capability profile from matched benchmarks

Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Grok 4.7

Coding: 32.6 / 100 (4 benchmark families)

Mathematics: 100 / 83.9 (1 benchmark family)

Finance: 92.2 / 96.8 (3 benchmark families)

Legal: 61.5 / 100 (3 benchmark families)

Agentic tasks: 100 / 99 (1 benchmark family)

Productivity: 90.6 / 100 (1 benchmark family)

Health: 92.8 / 94.4 (2 benchmark families)

Education: 100 / 81.8 (1 benchmark family)

18 matched rows from 17 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 10 comparable categories.

Gemini 3.5 FlashGrok 4.7

Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash26.745 %

Grok 4.744.816 %

EMBOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash63.548 %

Grok 4.766.991 %

Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash57.861 %

Grok 4.752.251 %

Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash2.5 %

Grok 4.712.5 %

Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash30.769 %

Grok 4.747.115 %

LegalBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash83.602 %

Grok 4.784.389 %

MedCodeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash55.825 %

Grok 4.749.553 %

MedScribeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash76.574 %

Grok 4.789.377 %

ProgramBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash0 %

Grok 4.70.5 %

ProofBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash31 %

Grok 4.726 %

Public Benefits Bench v1.1Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash59.472 %

Grok 4.765.629 %

SAGEOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Gemini 3.5 Flash49.885 %

Grok 4.740.79 %

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Benchmark scores for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.7
Benchmark and task	Gemini 3.5 Flash	Grok 4.7	Source
Code MigrationOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	26.745 %	Winner44.816 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
EMBOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	63.548 %	Winner66.991 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Finance Agent (v2)Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner57.861 %	52.251 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: task resolution rateScoring: Higher is better	2.5 %	Winner12.5 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: all-pass rateScoring: Higher is better	30.769 %	Winner47.115 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
LegalBenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	83.602 %	Winner84.389 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
MedCodeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner55.825 %	49.553 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
MedScribeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	76.574 %	Winner89.377 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
ProgramBenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	0 %	Winner0.5 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
ProofBenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner31 %	26 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/28/2026
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	59.472 %	Winner65.629 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
SAGEOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner49.885 %	40.79 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
Tax Agent BenchOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	53.526 %	Winner65.596 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Terminal-Bench 2.1Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	Winner74.157 %	73.408 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 4.0Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	4.04 %	Winner28.283 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Terminal-Bench ScienceOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 0.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better	4.286 %	Winner11.429 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vals IndexOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: weighted index scoreScoring: Higher is better	53.079 %	Winner60.215 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Harness: OpenHands	48.683 %	Winner86.175 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/27/2026
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Our model tests

Our tests

Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the latest attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. Earlier runs remain available in the test details. These results do not contribute to an overall score.

Pelican on a bicycle

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

The response reached the token limit. No complete recording is available.

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt

Run date: 2 Oct 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: google/gemini-3.5-flash
API model reported in response: google/gemini-3.5-flash
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: Google AI Studio | google/gemini-3.5-flash-20260519
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Failed
Response time: 37.7 s

Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.

Earlier attempts (2)

1 Oct 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high
7 Sept 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high

Grok 4.7

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt

Run date: 1 Oct 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: x-ai/grok-4.7
API model reported in response: x-ai/grok-4.7
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: xAI | x-ai/grok-4.7-20260916
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Passed, not a quality rating
Response time: 13.4 s

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Earlier attempts (1)

1 Oct 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high

Prompt and test conditions

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens

Task origin (Simon Willison)

How to read this comparison

Winning one benchmark is not an overall verdict

Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.

The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.

Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.

More matchups

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and Grok 4.7 with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.

View the complete LLM comparison