LLMgoogle

Google: Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.

Anyone in the Project can @-mention Google: Gemini 3.8 Flash with the team's shared context - pooled credits, one chat, one memory.

All models

Starter is free forever - 1 Project, 100 credits/month, 1 MCP. No card.

Verdict

Gemini 3.8 Flash targets teams that need multimodal understanding at scale without breaking the budget. It handles text, images, video, audio, and files across a million-token context window for $0.75/$3.75 per Mtok — roughly half the cost of GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet. The trade-off is unproven performance: no public benchmarks exist yet, so you're betting on Google's track record rather than hard numbers. Reach for this when you need cheap multimodal processing on large documents or media libraries and can tolerate some uncertainty on accuracy.

Best for

  • Multimodal analysis on tight budgets
  • Long-context document processing with images
  • Video and audio transcription at scale
  • File parsing across diverse formats
  • Cost-sensitive prototyping with media inputs

Strengths

The million-token context window lets you process entire codebases, lengthy transcripts, or multi-hour video files in a single call. Multimodal support spans text, images, video, audio, and arbitrary files — useful for workflows that mix PDFs, screenshots, and recordings. At $0.75 input and $3.75 output per Mtok, it undercuts most frontier models by 40-60 percent, making it viable for high-volume batch jobs or internal tooling where cost matters more than peak accuracy.

Trade-offs

No public benchmarks means you're flying blind on reasoning quality, factual accuracy, and instruction-following compared to Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-4o. Google's Flash tier historically trails Gemini Pro on complex tasks, so expect weaker performance on math, code generation, and nuanced analysis. The proprietary license locks you into Google's infrastructure, and multimodal latency can spike on video or large file inputs. If your use case demands proven accuracy or you need to compare performance head-to-head, wait for benchmark data or test extensively before committing.

Specifications

Provider
google
Category
llm
Context length
1,048,576 tokens
Max output
65,536 tokens
Modalities
text, image, video, file, audio
License
proprietary
Released
2026-09-02

Pricing

Input
$0.82/Mtok
Output
$4.13/Mtok
Model ID
google/gemini-3.8-flash

Per-token prices show what the model costs upstream. On Switchy your team draws from one shared org credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.

Team cost calculator

Estimated monthly spend
$31.94
17.6M tokens / month
5 seats · 80 msgs/day

Switchy meters this against your org's shared credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.

Providers

ProviderContextInputOutputP50 latencyThroughput30d uptime
google1049k$0.75/Mtok$3.75/Mtok———

Performance

Performance snapshots are collected daily. Check back after the next ingestion run.

Benchmarks

Public benchmark scores are not available yet for this model. Check back after the next ingestion run.

Works well with

Top MCPs

Compatibility data comes from first-party telemetry; once we have enough co-usage signal, top MCPs for this model will appear here.

How Switchy teams use it

Not enough Projects have used this model yet to share anonymised team stats. We wait for at least 50 distinct Projects per week before publishing any aggregate.

Starter prompts

Summarize Video Transcript

Watch this video and provide a structured summary with timestamps for each major topic discussed. Highlight any action items or decisions made.

Extract Data from Mixed Files

Review these files (PDF invoice, product image, Excel sheet) and extract all line items, quantities, and prices into a single JSON object.

Analyze Codebase with Docs

Here's a full codebase and its documentation. Explain how the authentication flow works and identify any security risks in the session management code.

Transcribe and Translate Audio

Transcribe this audio file, then translate the transcript into Spanish. Preserve speaker labels and timestamps.

Compare Visual Designs

Compare these three UI mockups. List differences in layout, color scheme, and typography, then recommend which version best follows our brand guidelines.

Example outputs

Illustrative - representative of the model's voice and quality, not literal recordings.

Prompt

Analyze this 45-minute earnings call transcript and extract the three most significant forward-looking statements, with exact quotes and timestamps.

Output

In a production scenario, Gemini 3.8 Flash would parse the full transcript and return structured findings like: (1) At 12:34, CFO states "We're targeting 40% gross margin expansion in Q3" — signals pricing power. (2) At 28:17, CEO mentions "Two enterprise pilots converting to full contracts in July" — near-term revenue visibility. (3) At 39:02, the phrase "regulatory approval timeline remains our biggest variable" — flags external dependency risk. Each quote would include surrounding context for verification.

Notes

The 1M+ token context window makes this model viable for analyzing hour-long transcripts or dense financial documents in a single pass, without chunking. At $0.75/Mtok input, processing a 200k-token earnings call costs ~$0.15. Trade-off: without published benchmarks, accuracy on nuanced financial language versus specialized models remains unverified.

Prompt

I'm attaching a 12-page product spec PDF and a 90-second demo video. List every feature mentioned in either artifact that isn't in the other, formatted as a comparison table.

Output

Gemini 3.8 Flash would process both the PDF text and video frames/audio, then output a table with columns: Feature | In PDF | In Video | Notes. Example rows: "Dark mode toggle" | Yes | No | Spec mentions implementation details. "Gesture-based navigation" | No | Yes | Demonstrated at 0:34 but undocumented. "API rate limits" | Yes | No | Technical detail in appendix. The model cross-references modalities to surface gaps between documentation and implementation.

Notes

Multimodal input (text, image, video, audio, file) in one request eliminates the need for separate processing pipelines. This is useful for QA workflows where specs and demos diverge. Trade-off: video understanding quality isn't benchmarked here, so frame-level accuracy for fast motion or small UI elements is uncertain.

Prompt

Convert this 8,000-line Python monorepo into a dependency graph showing which modules import which, then suggest three refactoring moves to reduce circular dependencies.

Output

In practice, the model would generate a visual representation (described textually): "Core modules: auth.py → database.py → models.py → auth.py (circular). API layer: routes.py imports 14 modules. Utils: helpers.py imported by 22 files." Then: Refactor 1: Extract shared types from models.py into types.py to break the auth→database→models→auth loop. Refactor 2: Move database connection logic from database.py to a new db_client.py so models.py doesn't need the full database module. Refactor 3: Split helpers.py into domain-specific utilities to reduce fan-in.

Notes

The large context window handles entire codebases without truncation, so the model sees all import statements and can reason about system-wide dependencies. At $0.75/Mtok, analyzing 8k lines (~150k tokens) costs ~$0.11. Trade-off: no code-specific benchmark scores published, so performance versus dedicated code models like Claude Sonnet 4 on complex refactoring tasks is unquantified.

Use-case deep-dives

Video content moderation pipeline

When Gemini 3.8 Flash's native video input replaces frame-extraction workflows

A 9-person community platform moderates 400 user-uploaded videos daily for policy violations—hate speech in audio, prohibited imagery in frames, text overlays with spam links. Gemini 3.8 Flash ingests video files directly and analyzes audio, visual, and text layers in one model call, eliminating the frame-extraction and transcription preprocessing that Claude Opus workflows require. At $0.75/Mtok input, a 90-second video averaging 50K tokens costs $0.0375 to process; output flagging at $3.75/Mtok adds $0.01 for a 3K token violation report. Per-video cost: $0.05. The 1M token context means you can include the last 30 days of a user's upload history in the same call for pattern detection. If your videos are under 30 seconds and text-only moderation suffices, GPT-4o at $2.50/Mtok input handles it cheaper. Above 200 videos/day with mixed content types, Gemini 3.8 Flash's native multimodal pipeline is the right call.

Frequently asked

Is Gemini 3.8 Flash good for general text tasks?

Yes, Gemini 3.8 Flash handles general text work well — drafting, summarization, Q&A, and light reasoning. The 1M+ token context window means you can feed it entire codebases or long documents without chunking. No public benchmarks exist yet, so performance relative to GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet remains unverified. Expect solid mid-tier capability at a competitive price.

Is Gemini 3.8 Flash cheaper than GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet?

Yes. At $0.75 input and $3.75 output per Mtok, Gemini 3.8 Flash undercuts GPT-4o ($2.50/$10.00) and Claude 3.5 Sonnet ($3.00/$15.00) by 60-70%. If you're running high-volume workflows where cost matters more than bleeding-edge reasoning, this is a strong pick. The trade-off is unproven benchmark performance.

Can Gemini 3.8 Flash handle multimodal inputs like video and audio?

Yes. Gemini 3.8 Flash accepts text, image, video, file, and audio inputs natively. This makes it useful for tasks like video transcription, image analysis in documents, or audio summarization without needing separate preprocessing pipelines. The 1M token context applies across all modalities, so you can mix large files and text prompts in one call.

How does Gemini 3.8 Flash compare to Gemini 2.0 Flash?

We don't have public benchmarks for either model yet, so direct performance comparison is speculative. Gemini 3.8 Flash likely offers incremental reasoning and instruction-following improvements over 2.0 Flash, given the version jump. Pricing and context window appear similar. Wait for benchmark data before migrating production workloads from 2.0 to 3.8.

Should I use Gemini 3.8 Flash for customer-facing chatbots?

Maybe. The low cost and multimodal support are appealing for high-traffic chat applications. However, without public benchmarks, you can't verify response quality, latency, or safety filtering against competitors. Run A/B tests with real users before committing. If budget is tight and you need multimodal chat, it's worth testing. For mission-critical chat, stick with proven models until benchmarks appear.

Compare with

More language models

See all language models →

Data last verified 13 hours ago.Sources aggregated hourly to weekly. See docs/architecture/model-directory.md.