Model Comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-3.5 TurboWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbo across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-3.5 Turbo — which is better?

Gemini 3.6 Flash (by Google) and GPT-3.5 Turbo (by OpenAI) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

On price, GPT-3.5 Turbo is roughly 4.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 3.6 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Gemini 3.6 Flash if…

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose GPT-3.5 Turbo if…

  • cost matters — it's about 4.0x cheaper per token

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbodon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo costs less

For input processing, Gemini 3.6 Flash ($1.50/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than GPT-3.5 Turbo ($0.50/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 3.6 Flash ($7.50/1M tokens) is 5.0x more expensive than GPT-3.5 Turbo ($1.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 3.6 Flash is more expensive than GPT-3.5 Turbo.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Jul 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Input tokens$1.50
Output tokens$7.50
Best providerGoogle
OpenAI
GPT-3.5 Turbo
Input tokens$0.50
Output tokens$1.50
Best providerAzure
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 3.6 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to GPT-3.5 Turbo's 16,385 tokens. Gemini 3.6 Flash can generate longer responses up to 65,536 tokens, while GPT-3.5 Turbo is limited to 4,096 tokens.

Google
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
OpenAI
GPT-3.5 Turbo
Input16,385 tokens
Output4,096 tokens
Wed Jul 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 3.6 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas GPT-3.5 Turbo does not.

Gemini 3.6 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

GPT-3.5 Turbo

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.6 Flash was released on 2026-07-21, while GPT-3.5 Turbo was released on 2023-03-21.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is 41 months newer than GPT-3.5 Turbo.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Jul 21, 2026

0 days ago

3.3yr newer
GPT-3.5 Turbo

Mar 21, 2023

3.3 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 3.6 Flash has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-03-31, while GPT-3.5 Turbo has a cutoff of 2021-09-30.

Gemini 3.6 Flash has more recent training data (up to 2026-03-31), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to GPT-3.5 Turbo (2021-09-30).

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Mar 2026

4.5 yr newer
GPT-3.5 Turbo

Sep 2021

Provider Availability

Gemini 3.6 Flash is available from Google. GPT-3.5 Turbo is available from Azure, OpenAI.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $1.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $7.50/1M

GPT-3.5 Turbo

azure logo
Azure
Input Price:Input: $0.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M
openai logo
OpenAI
Input Price:Input: $0.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
OpenAI
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbo side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.6 Flash
✓ Preferred
GPT-3.5 Turbo
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 3.6 Flash
OpenAI
GPT-3.5 Turbo

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GPT-3.5 Turbo.

Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.6 Flash (Google) and GPT-3.5 Turbo (OpenAI) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemini 3.6 Flash compare to GPT-3.5 Turbo in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, OSWorld-Verified: 83.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 78.0%, MLE-Bench: 63.9%, SWE-Bench Pro: 58.7%. GPT-3.5 Turbo scores DROP: 70.2%, MMLU: 69.8%, HumanEval: 68.0%, MGSM: 56.3%, MATH: 43.1%.

Is Gemini 3.6 Flash cheaper than GPT-3.5 Turbo?

GPT-3.5 Turbo is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 3.6 Flash costs $1.50/M input and $7.50/M output via google. GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $0.50/M input and $1.50/M output via azure.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.6 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and GPT-3.5 Turbo supports 16K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 16K), input pricing ($1.50 vs $0.50/M), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.6 Flash and GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.6 Flash is developed by Google and GPT-3.5 Turbo is developed by OpenAI.

Related comparisons