Gemini 2.5 Flash
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Google · Hybrid Reasoning Omni Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision, Audio, Video · Released 2025-03-03
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 72.7/100Architectural & Production Profile
Hybrid reasoning model delivering strong price-performance across 1M context with configurable thinking budgets.
Cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants.
- Architecture
- Hybrid Reasoning Omni Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision, Audio, Video
- Max Output Tokens
- 65,536 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.850 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Gemini 2.5 Flash
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Gemini & Vertex AI → | Primary Host | $0.30 | $2.50 | 110ms | 180 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.30/1M in · $2.50/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.30/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Gemini 2.5 Flash (36)
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (740ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 180 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 93.8% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (270ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 180 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 84.2% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (570ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 180 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 93.2% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (5ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Flash) with 210 vs. 180 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 79.2% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (230ms faster than GPT-5) with 180 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 85.4% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (630ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 180 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 96.0% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 77.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (4.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (410ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 180 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 90.1% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek R1
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 45.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (1340ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 180 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 70.5% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 26.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (200ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 180 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 91.3% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs OpenAI o3
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (1040ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 180 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 87.7% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude 4 Opus
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (810ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 180 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 87.1% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (430ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 180 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 78.5% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 76.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (4.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (310ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 180 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 82.4% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Grok 4
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (370ms faster than Grok 4) with 180 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 86.2% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (25ms faster than Llama 4 Maverick) with 180 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 73.8% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 46.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 180 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 91.7% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 75.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (4.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (32ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Flash) with 265 vs. 180 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 70.5% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs OpenAI o4-mini
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (3.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (570ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 180 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 81.4% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 53.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (300ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 180 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 70.5% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (5ms faster than Gemma 4 31B IT) with 180 vs. 155 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 71.2% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs OpenAI o3-mini
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (3.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (840ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 180 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 70.5% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 62.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (2.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (80ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 180 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 70.5% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (200ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 180 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 70.5% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 66.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (3.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 180 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 70.5% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 76.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (4.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (590ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 180 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 74.0% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-5.3
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 14.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (50ms faster than GLM-5.3) with 180 vs. 120 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 70.5% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (20ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Flash) with 175 vs. 180 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 70.5% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4o
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than GPT-4o) with 180 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 70.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (110ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 180 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 70.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (410ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 180 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 92.4% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Grok 3
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (510ms faster than Grok 3) with 180 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 84.6% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Grok 3 Mini
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok 3 Mini share identical input pricing at $0.30 per 1M tokens ($2.50 vs. $1.20 output). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (40ms faster than Grok 3 Mini) with 180 vs. 160 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 70.5% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (35ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 180 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 70.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (270ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 180 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 70.5% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs o1
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (2490ms faster than o1) with 180 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 70.5% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (10ms faster than Qwen 3.8 27B) with 180 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 68.0% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Gemini 2.5 Flash cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.030 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 90%.
What are Gemini 2.5 Flash's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Gemini 2.5 Flash achieves 58% on SWE-bench Verified, 91.5% on HumanEval coding, 70.5% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 82% on MMLU-Pro, and 89% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 66.6/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash supports a 1,048,576 token context window (65,536 max output tokens) and operates at 110ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 180 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants.