Which Gemini 3.8 Flash conclusions hold up?

Google's official benchmarks and reproduction boundaries

Google's release table gives 3.8 Flash higher corresponding scores than 3.7 Flash, while not beating every competing model on every item. These are vendor-reported results, not independent re-tests.

Source

Google published benchmarks

Date

Release materials published 2026-09-02

Boundary

Vendor-reported; some tools, sampling, and reasoning configuration are undisclosed

Artificial Analysis: current speed, latency, and version scope

Reopened on 2026-09-20, Artificial Analysis v4.3.2 shows Intelligence Index 41 for High, 40 for Medium, and 33 for Low; High is listed at 305 tok/s while current Medium and Low speed are unknown. The Sep 8 v4.3 figures are historical.

Version

Artificial Analysis v4.3.2 (reopened 2026-09-20)

Tier

High / Medium / Low; only current High speed 305 tok/s is published

Boundary

Older v4.2/v4.3 values are dated snapshots and must not be mixed with current values

AIIQ: benchmark coverage and task boundaries

The profile reopened on September 20 shows derived IQ 124 and rank 16. Some dimensions lack direct measured coverage; this is not a task-performance guarantee.

Page

AIIQ current model page

Coverage

Academic reasoning 5/6; programmatic reasoning 1/6; reliability 2/7

Model

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Vals AI Finance Agent v2: retrieval and analysis

The research note preserves an earlier Finance Agent v2 snapshot. The current leaderboard summary has changed; distinguish Partial Credit, All-Pass, and category results rather than reuse the historical rank.

Task set

Finance Agent v2; Test results from 927 questions

Tools

Six finance retrieval/calculation tools; three runs per model

Boundary

Not general intelligence or production investment-research accuracy

SimpleBench: everyday reasoning and language traps

The current SimpleBench leaderboard lists Gemini 3.8 Flash fourth at 82.4% AVG@5. It trails the highest human score, the human baseline, and the leading model; this is a sample-specific comparison.

Task set

SimpleBench; 204 independent questions, AVG@5

Parameters

temperature 0.7; full engineered prompt undisclosed

Boundary

English text multiple-choice sample; no general capability extrapolation

Google's official benchmarks and reproduction boundaries

Google's release table gives 3.8 Flash higher corresponding scores than 3.7 Flash, while not beating every competing model on every item. These are vendor-reported results, not independent re-tests.

Source

Google published benchmarks

Date

Release materials published 2026-09-02

Boundary

Vendor-reported; some tools, sampling, and reasoning configuration are undisclosed

Artificial Analysis: current speed, latency, and version scope

Reopened on 2026-09-20, Artificial Analysis v4.3.2 shows Intelligence Index 41 for High, 40 for Medium, and 33 for Low; High is listed at 305 tok/s while current Medium and Low speed are unknown. The Sep 8 v4.3 figures are historical.

Version

Artificial Analysis v4.3.2 (reopened 2026-09-20)

Tier

High / Medium / Low; only current High speed 305 tok/s is published

Boundary

Older v4.2/v4.3 values are dated snapshots and must not be mixed with current values

AIIQ: benchmark coverage and task boundaries

The profile reopened on September 20 shows derived IQ 124 and rank 16. Some dimensions lack direct measured coverage; this is not a task-performance guarantee.

Page

AIIQ current model page

Coverage

Academic reasoning 5/6; programmatic reasoning 1/6; reliability 2/7

Model

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Vals AI Finance Agent v2: retrieval and analysis

The research note preserves an earlier Finance Agent v2 snapshot. The current leaderboard summary has changed; distinguish Partial Credit, All-Pass, and category results rather than reuse the historical rank.

Task set

Finance Agent v2; Test results from 927 questions

Tools

Six finance retrieval/calculation tools; three runs per model

Boundary

Not general intelligence or production investment-research accuracy

SimpleBench: everyday reasoning and language traps

The current SimpleBench leaderboard lists Gemini 3.8 Flash fourth at 82.4% AVG@5. It trails the highest human score, the human baseline, and the leading model; this is a sample-specific comparison.

Task set

SimpleBench; 204 independent questions, AVG@5

Parameters

temperature 0.7; full engineered prompt undisclosed

Boundary

English text multiple-choice sample; no general capability extrapolation

Arena.ai: Agent, Text, and WebDev rankings at High

Arena's 2026-09-03 launch snapshot placed High at 14th in Agent Arena, 7th in Text Arena, and 18th in Code Arena: WebDev. These results belong to that platform and voting window.

Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked.

Window

Arena 2026-09-03 launch snapshot

Task

Agent / Text / Code Arena: WebDev

Boundary

Voting-platform result; full sampling and tool configuration undisclosed

Reddit: short repository tasks and autonomy boundaries

One author used High in Antigravity for about an hour and found better planning and grounding than 3.7 Flash. It is an uncontrolled personal report with no success-rate or cost measurement.

Client

Google Antigravity

Tier

High

Sample

About one hour; task count, prompts, and logs undisclosed

X: generation boundaries in a shared 3D rocket task

One author ran a single shared 3D rocket brief across four models and judged Flash runnable but weaker on geometry, smoke, and frame stability. This is a one-task subjective comparison.

Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked.

Task

Same brief; one 3D rocket generation per model

Client

Undisclosed; only Goal Mode is mentioned

Boundary

Single subjective comparison; cost and 30 minutes are not generalizable

Vals AI Harvey: strict legal-agent pass rate

On Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 held-out test set, strict Task Pass Rate is 10.00% ± 2.42%, ranked 11th of 59; Criteria Pass Rate is 90.19% ± 0.36%. The two metrics answer different questions.

Task set

Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark v1 held-out

Tools

Six tools, three skills; internet disabled

Boundary

Task Pass Rate and Criteria Pass Rate are distinct

Reddit: cross-version game generation with one creative prompt

One user used the same zero-shot prompt in Antigravity across four Gemini versions, feeling 3.8 was more autonomous while 3.6 followed intent better. A loose creative task cannot establish a general ranking.

Client

Google Antigravity

Task

Same zero-shot creative prompt; simple game

Boundary

Single-user experience; no common score or repeat count

CursorBench 3.2: multi-file agent success and cost

On the current CursorBench 3.2 leaderboard, High is 69.2% and Medium is 67.0%; the page also reports per-task cost, tokens, and steps. Compare tiers only within the same benchmark conditions.

Version

CursorBench 3.2

Environment

Cursor Agent harness

Boundary

Leaderboard cost and success rate apply only to this harness