Electricity Bench

gemini-3.6-flash vs composer-2.5

Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.

gemini-3.6-flashClears tier 4 (partial tier 5) at 12.6% of Google AI Pro per runCOVERALLcomposer-2.5Clears tier 2 (partial tier 5) at 1.8% of Cursor Pro per runDOVERALL
real-world@v3CvsC
Dimensiongemini-3.6-flashcomposer-2.5Advantage
Capability60%57%+3% (gemini-3.6-flash leads)
Median task time2m 17s1m 30s47s faster (composer-2.5 leads)
Approx. task cost$0.039 / task$0.023 / task$0.015 / task lower (composer-2.5 leads)

gemini-3.6-flash: 12.6% of Google AI Pro (about 72.1% / 5h, 12.6% / 1w) per run. composer-2.5: 1.8% of Cursor Pro (1.8% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.

spec-planning@v1-vsD

Only composer-2.5 has run this suite, so there is no head-to-head yet.

vibe-coding@v1CvsD
Dimensiongemini-3.6-flashcomposer-2.5Advantage
Capability72%37%+35% (gemini-3.6-flash leads)
Median task time1m 54s1m 51s3s faster (composer-2.5 leads)
Approx. task cost$0.038 / task$0.024 / task$0.013 / task lower (composer-2.5 leads)

gemini-3.6-flash: 0.8% of Google AI Pro (4.9% / 5h, 0.8% / 1w) per good solve. composer-2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.

Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better for coding, gemini-3.6-flash or composer-2.5?

gemini-3.6-flash clears higher: tier 4 of 5 versus tier 2 for composer-2.5 on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-10.