// head_to_head

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 and Gemini 3.5 Flash are priced within ~10% of each other.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

google

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05

Blended / 1M
$3.44
Context
1.0M
Released
Jun 5, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputaudio inputprompt caching

google

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Blended / 1M
$3.38
Context
1.0M
Released
May 19, 2026
Overall score
74.6
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo inputfile inputaudio inputprompt caching

Specs and pricing

MetricGemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Gemini 3.5 Flash
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

74.6
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.1357
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$3.44$3.38
Input price / 1M$1.25win$1.50
Output price / 1M$10.00$9.00win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.125win$0.150
Context window1.0M1.0M
Max output tokens66K66K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 on top, Gemini 3.5 Flash below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
49.0
Coding
78.2
Reasoning
82.0
Mathematics
88.2
Data analysis
64.9
Language
84.6
Instruction following
75.6

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadGemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Gemini 3.5 Flash
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$1,019/mo$982.80/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$1,150/mo$1,200/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$1,170/mo$1,164/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$1,944/mo$2,108/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$3,563/mo$3,975/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash FAQ

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 and Gemini 3.5 Flash are priced within ~10% of each other. Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash?

They cost about the same. Both land near $3.44 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.

Does Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 or Gemini 3.5 Flash have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.0M for Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 and 1.0M for Gemini 3.5 Flash.

Do Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 and Gemini 3.5 Flash support prompt caching?

Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.125 per million for Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 and $0.150 for Gemini 3.5 Flash, against full input rates of $1.25 and $1.50. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.