Fronset Benchmark

Gemini 3.6 Flash (archived)

Provider
Gemini
Model name
gemini-3.6-flash
Last benchmarked
Qualified on
18 / 52 tasks (at the 90% bar)
Best value on
0 tasks

Good enough on 18/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 0 tasks. Doesn't qualify on any: Structured Data & Fact Extraction.

Cost vs quality across all tasks, as of 5 September 2026

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Newsletter Copy Generation — quality 8.98, 5.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionBatch Text Translation — quality 8.91, 4.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Labeling — quality 8.35, 2.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionProfiled Document Analysis — quality 8.09, 1.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Section Assignment — quality 8.49, 7.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPublication Title Package Generation — quality 8.66, 2.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionReport Outline Generation — quality 8.75, 4.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSocial Post Portfolio Selection — quality 8.72, 16.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionMetadata Paragraph Rewriting — quality 8.89, 11.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionModel Specific Prompt Adaptation — quality 8.08, 5.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSubject Configuration Generation — quality 8.64, 4.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPersona Policy Eligibility Check — quality 8.78, 6.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionShort Promotional Teaser Generation — quality 8.32, 10.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Identification — quality 9.70, 16.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionReference Preserving Analytical Writing — quality 8.38, 7.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionEngagement Opportunity Triage — quality 8.49, 11.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Taxonomy Matching — quality 7.93, 2.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPromotional Message Generation — quality 8.15, 3.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown, as of 5 September 2026

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Profiled Document AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions93%HIGH1.5x
Topic Cluster LabelingTopic Organization & Clustering94%RANKED2.2x
Topic Taxonomy MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching94%HIGH2.7x
Publication Title Package GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis94%RANKED2.7x
Promotional Message GenerationSocial & Promotional Content93%RANKED3.3x
Report Outline GenerationLong-form Content Generation91%RANKED4.2x
Subject Configuration GenerationFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions97%MEDIUM4.5x
Batch Text TranslationInfrastructure & Utility95%RANKED4.8x
Newsletter Copy GenerationLong-form Content Generation96%RANKED5.3x
Model Specific Prompt AdaptationInfrastructure & Utility92%MEDIUM5.6x
Persona Policy Eligibility CheckRelevance, Classification & Matching95%HIGH6.8x
Topic Section AssignmentTopic Organization & Clustering97%MEDIUM7.3x
Reference Preserving Analytical WritingLong-form Content Generation91%MEDIUM7.4x
Short Promotional Teaser GenerationSocial & Promotional Content95%RANKED10x
Engagement Opportunity TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching96%RANKED11x
Metadata Paragraph RewritingInfrastructure & Utility94%HIGH12x
Language IdentificationRelevance, Classification & Matching96%MEDIUM16x
Social Post Portfolio SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching99%HIGH16x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.