RankingEffort benchmarks

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Compare models

70 measured results · 6 effort settings · 60 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Reasoning2 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A26.0Supported
Hard reasoning
A10.3Supported
Coding
A23.3Preliminary
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A19.4Preliminary
Multimodal
A38.9Preliminary
Long context
A27.3Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Reasoning: 11.5 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

6 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Which sources carry the weight?

Artificial Analysis · 100.0% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

Humanity’s Last Exam · 8.0% direct comparison weight
GPQA · 8.0% direct comparison weight
Critpt · 8.0% direct comparison weight
omniscience · 8.0% direct comparison weight
Mmmu Pro · 8.0% direct comparison weight
Other families (10) · 59.9% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-23.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	Comparison support lost; no rank		203 remaining / 241 lost	Unavailable
ARC Prize	181 → 183	Down 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	14.5 (+3.0 points)
Datacurve	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	9.2 (-2.3 points)
LiveCodeBench	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.4 (-0.1 points)
Scale	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	13.0 (+1.6 points)
Terminal-Bench	181 → 181	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.4 (-0.1 points)
Cognition	181 → 185	Down 4	444 remaining / 0 lost	10.9 (-0.5 points)
LiveBench	180 → 178	Up 2	443 remaining / 1 lost	11.9 (+0.4 points)
SWE-rebench	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.7 (+0.3 points)
Epoch AI	177 → 180	Down 3	431 remaining / 13 lost	11.8 (+0.4 points)
Vals AI	181 → 181	No movement	443 remaining / 1 lost	11.0 (-0.4 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	181 → 181	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.5 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.1 (-0.3 points)
Provider reports · Meta	181 → 181	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.5 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	181 → 181	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.5 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.6 (+0.1 points)
All provider reports	181 → 182	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	11.2 (-0.3 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
critpt	14.5	+3.0
arc-agi	14.0	+2.5
deepswe	9.2	-2.3
hle	12.7	+1.2
enterprise-ops	10.3	-1.2
gdp-pdf	10.8	-0.7
automationbench	10.8	-0.7
frontiercode	10.9	-0.5
simpleqa	12.0	+0.5
epoch-game-puzzles	11.0	-0.5
terminal-bench-science	11.9	+0.4
briefcase	11.9	+0.4
ifbench	11.1	-0.4
aa-lcr	11.2	-0.3
mmlu-pro	11.8	+0.3
swe-rebench	11.7	+0.3
tau-bench	11.2	-0.3
livebench-instructions	11.7	+0.2
multi-swe-bench	11.3	-0.2
harvey	11.3	-0.2
apex-agents	11.7	+0.2
mmmu-pro	11.3	-0.2
gpqa	11.3	-0.2
livebench-language	11.6	+0.2
analyst-agent	11.6	+0.2
terminal-bench	11.3	-0.1
omniscience	11.3	-0.1
arc-agi-3	11.3	-0.1
enigma-eval	11.3	-0.1
swe-atlas-qna	11.3	-0.1
livebench-coding	11.4	-0.1
vibe-code	11.4	-0.1
livebench-reasoning	11.4	-0.1
gmmlu	11.5	+0.1
swe-atlas-test-writing	11.4	-0.1
aime	11.4	-0.1
vals-code-migration	11.4	-0.0
vals-legal-research	11.4	-0.0
vals-finance-agent	11.4	-0.0
math500	11.5	+0.0
vals-tax-agent	11.4	-0.0
itbench	11.4	-0.0
livecodebench	11.5	-0.0
vals-excel-modeling	11.5	-0.0
gdpval	11.5	+0.0
livebench-math	11.5	+0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	11.5	-0.0
frontiermath	11.5	+0.0
swe-bench-pro	11.5	+0.0
livebench-data	11.5	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 77 observations, 63 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 14 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

4 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
1 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
1 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
1 · Effort is not identified
3 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
3 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
1 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Minimal	Low	Medium	High	Reasoning	Unspecified
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	650.26 Elo Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	76% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	25.01% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	0% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	42.35% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	13.6% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	983.28 Elo Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	83.84% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Hallucination-Gated All-Pass RateArtificial Analysis · Stirrup; Harvey private dataset v1.1.0; 120 tasks across 24 practice areas; up to 200 turns; internet disabled; GPT-6 Sol, Grok 4.7 and Claude Opus 5.5 rubric judges; GPT-6 Sol High two-pass hallucination check; hallucination-gated all-pass averaged across judges Benchmark details Average over tasks of the share of the judge panel finding every rubric criterion passed, with a task zeroed on any material hallucination · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	0% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	18.81% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	7.22% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	79.02% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	5.23 Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	29.47% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	41.32% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	17.53% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Artificial Analysis · mini-swe-agent; Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1.0; 70 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats Benchmark details Share of tasks passed (pass@1), averaged over three repeats · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	0% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	53.56% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	1.01% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash-lite; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize · v2 Semi-Private Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	0.83% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Minimal); Source model ID: gemini-3-5-flash-lite-minimal; 120 tasks	1.53% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Low); Source model ID: gemini-3-5-flash-lite-low; 120 tasks	5.28% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Medium); Source model ID: gemini-3-5-flash-lite-medium; 120 tasks	10.28% Reported settings Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (High); Source model ID: gemini-3-5-flash-lite-high; 120 tasks	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · AMPS Hard · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	95% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-AMPS_Hard; gemini-3.5-flash-lite-high; checkpoint=gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · code completion · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	76.09% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-code_completion; gemini-3.5-flash-lite-high; checkpoint=gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · code generation · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	76.06% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-code_generation; gemini-3.5-flash-lite-high; checkpoint=gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · connections · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	92% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-connections; gemini-3.5-flash-lite-high; checkpoint=gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · consecutive events · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	21.1% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-consecutive_events; gemini-3.5-flash-lite-high; checkpoint=gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Not reported	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results