Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Whether the newer Flash earns five times the price of the one it replaced.
Side by side
| Attribute | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input, per 1M tokens | $1.50 | $0.30 |
| Output, per 1M tokens | $7.50 | $2.50 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Provider | ||
| Tokenizer | Google tokenizer | Google tokenizer |
| Long-context tier | none | none |
| Retires | no date announced | no date announced |
Which to choose
- On cost, Gemini 2.5 Flash is 5x cheaper per million input tokens. On a workload that reads far more than it writes, that ratio is close to the whole difference in the bill.
- On capacity, both hold the same number of tokens, so neither constrains what you can send.
What this page does not tell you. Which model produces better answers. That depends on your task, and this site has no benchmark data — everything above is drawn from published pricing and specifications. Compare quality by running your own prompts through both.
Common questions
- Is Gemini 3.6 Flash or Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper?
- Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on input — $0.30 per million against $1.50, a difference of 5x. Output rates differ separately, and a workload heavy on generated text can reverse which one costs less overall.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both hold 1,000,000 tokens, input and output combined.
- Can I compare them on my own prompt?
- Yes. The calculator counts any text against every model at once, so you can see both figures for your actual workload rather than for a generic example.