New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6

vs

Which one, when

Both carry roughly the same context (1048576 for gemini-3.8-flash, 1050000 for gpt-5.6) and the same chat, vision, code, tools and reasoning flags, so the split is price and inputs. Pick gemini-3.8-flash for audio and video input alongside text and image, and for cost at scale: $0.75 input and $3.75 output versus $5 and $30, about 6.7x and 8x cheaper, with $0.075 cache reads against $0.5. Pick gpt-5.6 when you need up to 128000 output tokens per call instead of 65536, or the option to turn thinking off.

Benchmarks

LeadsAbove averageNo peer higherGemini 3.8 Flash1012 / 175 / 17GPT-5.6796 / 11828 / 118

17 measured on both.

Gemini 3.8 Flash GPT-5.6 other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
73.7%
72.7%
BioMysteryBench hard
no peer scored higher 56.5%
44.7%
OSWorld 2.0 Partial score, batch tool enabled
59%
62.6%
Cybergym
N/A
84.5%
HealthBench Professional
52.1%
60.5%
Finance Agent v2
no peer scored higher 61.4%
53.8%
Legal Agent Benchmark
10%
2.5%
GPQA Diamond
95.3%
94.6%
BrowseComp
N/A
90.4%
CharXiv (RQ) no tools
no peer scored higher 86.2%
85.8%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Gemini 3.8 Flash GPT-5.6 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.75 $5 0.15×
Output / 1M tokens $3.75 $30 0.13×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.075 $0.5 0.15×
Cache write - no separate charge -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 71 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Gemini 3.8 Flash · $0.75 GPT-5.6 · $5
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Gemini 3.8 Flash GPT-5.6
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control yes - vendor dial not published configurable
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching implicit + explicit implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime not published 5-10m, up to 1h
Minimum cached prefix 4096 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Gemini 3.8 Flash GPT-5.6
Input modalities text image audio video text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-02 2026-07-09
Knowledge cutoff 2026-03 2026-02
Context window 1M 1.1M
Max output 66K 128K
Thinking parameter - reasoning.effort
Accepted values -
reasoning.effort
  • none
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
Default - medium

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Gemini 3.8 Flash · GPT-5.6

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating hidden "thinking tokens" to work through logic step-by-step before producing a final answer. Because AI vendors bill for every single token processed—visible or not—this internal deliberation dramatically inflated our billable volume per query. In short, while our total number of user requests remained flat, the cost per transaction doubled to buy higher accuracy on complex tasks.

out 705 tok (+624 thinking) latency 6.4 s

GPT-5.6 passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model generate many additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes substantially more compute. Those reasoning tokens are billed even though they are not visible to users, and longer processing can also increase tool calls, retries, and output length. The bill doubled because our cost per request rose, not necessarily because usage volume increased; we can control it by limiting reasoning effort and routing simpler tasks to cheaper models.

out 126 tok (+30 thinking) latency 3.0 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

Here is the corrected function: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function counted equal-neighbor transitions rather than the actual items making up each run. Because `cur` started at `0` (and was reset to `0` on mismatches), every run was undercounted by one: single-element lists returned `0` because the loop never executed, and any subsequent run—including those ending at the last index—recorded a count of $N - 1$ instead of $N$. The fix handles empty input upfront, initializes both `cur` and `best` to `1` (since any single element forms a run of length 1), and resets `cur` to `1` whenever a new run begins.

out 1393 tok (+1149 thinking) latency 10.1 s

GPT-5.6 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: best = max(best, cur) cur = 1 return max(best, cur) ``` The original code counted equal *transitions* rather than items, so a run of one had length `0`, a run of three had length `2`, and tracking from zero caused the off-by-one error. The corrected version starts each run at length `1`, resets to `1` when the value changes, and performs a final `max` after the loop so a run ending at the last element is included; an empty input still returns `0`.

out 277 tok (+93 thinking) latency 4.2 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```

out 3989 tok (+3932 thinking) latency 30.4 s

GPT-5.6 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" }

out 179 tok (+118 thinking) latency 3.7 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Gemini 3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Why pay multiple model providers for the exact same output? Introducing Universal Prompt Cache, our latest API gateway capability engineered to cut compute expenses and drop inference latency. When your application makes a call, the gateway inspects a central memory layer before routing traffic to external LLMs. If an identical query was previously processed by OpenAI, Anthropic, or Mistral, our gateway returns that response immediately. This shared cache eliminates duplicate token fees and insulates your production apps from vendor rate limits or unexpected downtime. Developers can easily customize expiration settings, enforce strict data privacy controls, and configure invalidation logic across every endpoint. Stop wasting your budget on repeated queries. Enable prompt caching in your dashboard to accelerate your pipeline today.

out 3833 tok (+3688 thinking) latency 21.8 s

GPT-5.6 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we are introducing Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompt prefixes and serves them across supported model providers. By recognizing identical system instructions, tools, examples, and context blocks, Prompt Cache reduces repeated input processing, lowers latency, and helps control token costs without changing application code. Teams can configure retention windows, cache keys, provider routing, encryption, and regional storage policies from one dashboard or API. What happens when a preferred provider is unavailable? The gateway can route requests to another provider while reusing eligible cached content, preserving performance and consistency. Built-in metrics report hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage, while audit logs support governance. Prompt Cache is available today in public preview for all customers.

out 628 tok (+473 thinking) latency 7.3 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gemini-3.8-flash",
    # model="gpt-5.6",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.8 Flash or GPT-5.6?

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.75 vs $5, 6.7× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Gemini 3.8 Flash against GPT-5.6 without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Gemini 3.8 Flash and GPT-5.6 support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies