Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Particle-1: which should you choose in 2026?
Gemini 3.6 Flash (by Google) and Particle-1 (by Particle ai) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Particle-1 is about 9.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.1625 vs $1.50 per 1M tokens).
Choose Gemini 3.6 Flash if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Particle-1 if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | 51.1% Artificial Analysis | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 49.0%±5.0 DataCurve | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | 92.8% Artificial Analysis | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | 40.8% Artificial Analysis | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | 73.6% LiveBench | — |
Benchmark sources
- AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Particle ai | |
| API provider | Particle AI | |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jul 21, 2026 | Oct 28, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.75 | $0.05 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $3.75 | $0.50 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $1.50 | $0.1625 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 28, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Gemini 3.6 Flash from Google with Particle-1 from Particle ai? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Particle-1 | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Particle-1 FAQ
Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Particle-1?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Particle-1 is about 9.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.1625 vs $1.50 per 1M tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Particle-1 is about 9.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.1625 vs $1.50 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Gemini 3.6 Flash and Particle-1?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Gemini 3.6 Flash comparisons
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.
Muse Wonder
Meta
Muse Wonder is a frontier reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex personal and professional agentic tasks.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
More Particle-1 comparisons
GPT-6.1 Terra Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Terra Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Terra, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Terra
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Terra is the mid-tier model in OpenAI's GPT-6.1 series, priced below GPT-6.1 Sol.
Kimi K3.1 Pro
Moonshot AI
Kimi K3.1 Pro is Moonshot AI's flagship open-weight multimodal reasoning model and a post-trained successor to Kimi K3, with a 1M-token context window.
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash is a multimodal model from MiniMax.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the October 17, 2026 snapshot of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, served by DeepSeek under the deepseek-flash API model name.
Glimpse
Elorian
Glimpse is a multimodal visual reasoning model from Elorian, built for visual understanding and complex visual reasoning in the physical world.