🎁 新用戶 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

vs

何時該用哪一個 — 綜合評斷,而非基準測試數據表

這兩款模型均具備 1048576-token 的脈絡視窗與 65536-token 的最大輸出限制,且支援相同的文字、圖片、影片與音訊輸入以及文字輸出,因此差異在於價格與推論能力:gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview 每百萬輸入收費 $0.25、輸出收費 $1.5,而 gemini-3.7-flash 的輸入收費為其 3x ($0.75)、輸出收費為 2.5x ($3.75),並新增了推論能力旗標。對於成本為首要考量的大量多模態工作,請選擇 gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview;若任務需要推論能力,或是有重複的提示詞可適用其 $0.075 的快取讀取費率時,請選擇 gemini-3.7-flash。

定價

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Gemini 3.7 Flash Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.75 0.33×
輸出 / 1M tokens $1.5 $3.75 0.4×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.075

費率取自建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。

它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下,所有 63 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格(對數尺度)

能力

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Gemini 3.7 Flash
工具使用
思考控制 是 —— 廠商未公布調節參數 是 —— 廠商未公布調節參數
結構化輸出
提示快取 隱式 + 顯式 隱式 + 顯式
快取生命週期 未公開 未公開
最小快取前綴 4096 個 token 4096 個 token

規格

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Gemini 3.7 Flash
輸入模態 文字 影像 音訊 影片 文字 影像 音訊 影片
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-03-03 2026-08-13
知識截止日期 2025-01
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 66K 66K

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略,而非自行推測。 完整來源: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite · Gemini 3.7 Flash

單一提示詞,兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning models increases your costs because the system now generates a significantly higher volume of "hidden" chain-of-thought tokens required to process complex logic. Since you are billed for every token produced during this internal deliberation phase, your total output volume has expanded alongside the depth of the analysis. You are essentially paying for the model to "think out loud" before arriving at a final answer, which directly scales your operational expenditure.

輸出 86 tok 延遲 1.4 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a high volume of invisible "thinking tokens" behind the scenes to deliberate and solve complex logic before delivering a final response. Because our vendor bills strictly on token volume, this additional internal computation effectively doubled our billable output per query. In short, our costs increased because we are now paying for the extra compute capacity required to produce significantly higher-accuracy answers.

輸出 878 tok (+799 思考) 延遲 6.9 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,可數)、受眾適配(面向 CFO 的語氣),以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。

提示詞 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. 檢查 修復通過測試

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 通過 · 8/8 cases

### Fixed Code ```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 failed because it initialized `best` and `cur` to `0` and effectively counted "transitions" (how many times an element matched its predecessor) rather than the total count of elements in a run. By starting at `0`, a single-element list returned `0` instead of `1`, and because `cur` reset to `0` and only incremented when a match was found, the function effectively counted "extra" matches beyond the first element, failing to account for the initial element of any run. […]

輸出 271 tok 延遲 2.0 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 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 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function tracked equal adjacent transitions instead of the actual number of elements in a run, causing all non-empty run lengths to be undercounted by one (e.g., returning `0` instead of `1` for single-element lists because the loop never executes, and `1` instead of `2` for pairs). Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` (after handling empty inputs) and resetting `cur` to `1` on a mismatch ensures every individual element is counted as a valid run of at least length one.

輸出 1050 tok (+827 思考) 延遲 6.4 s

修復是否真的正確(可執行)、解釋的資訊密度,以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 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. 檢查 合法 JSON,schema 精確

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

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

輸出 56 tok 延遲 1.3 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"

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

輸出 918 tok (+858 思考) 延遲 6.2 s

schema 服從度(不臆造欄位)、幻覺壓力(guidance 明確被暫緩給出),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 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. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 通過 · 125 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are launching a new caching layer for our API gateway that stores LLM responses across multiple providers. By capturing frequently requested prompts, this feature significantly lowers latency and reduces operational costs for your applications. Instead of querying expensive models for repetitive tasks, your system retrieves identical outputs instantly from our high-speed cache. This integration maintains consistency while supporting diverse provider workflows, ensuring your infrastructure remains both efficient and scalable. Are you ready to optimize your token usage and improve response times for every user? Configuration takes only minutes through our existing dashboard. This addition provides a practical strategy to manage API spend without sacrificing performance or quality. […]

輸出 140 tok 延遲 2.3 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Why pay twice for identical AI queries simply because you routed them to different model vendors? Today, we introduce Universal Prompt Caching directly within our unified API gateway architecture. This capability stores repeated prompt contexts across OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models, instantly returning stored results to eliminate redundant computation fees. When your application sends an LLM request, the gateway inspects the payload, identifies semantic matches, and returns accurate cached responses in under ten milliseconds. Engineering teams can now slash inference latency by eighty percent while dramatically reducing monthly token expenditures across diverse production deployments. You retain complete privacy control, flexible cache eviction policies, and granular metrics through a single dashboard. Update your routing settings today to accelerate overall system performance.

輸出 2858 tok (+2718 思考) 延遲 14.1 s

約束服從度(字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句)、文風指紋,以及長度控制。

只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換

以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點,相同的金鑰,相同的請求結構。

from openai import OpenAI

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

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview",
    # model="gemini-3.7-flash",  # 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 和 Gemini 3.7 Flash 哪個比較便宜?

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜($0.25 對比 $0.75,相差 3.0×)。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊,實際成本取決於您的使用組合。

我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下,對 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 和 Gemini 3.7 Flash 進行 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務,並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串,因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 與 Gemini 3.7 Flash 支援提示快取嗎?

我們的資料來源中僅列出兩者其中之一的快取讀取定價;若缺少某項費率,表示該供應商未對快取讀取單獨計費。

相關比較