MModelspectraIndependent AI Model Intelligence
Head-to-head · Updated 2026-09-08
中文
Model Comparison · Head to Head

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Doubao Seed Evolving

Gemini 3.8 Flash wins on Overall, Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.

VendorGoogle / ByteDance
Data fields15+ dimensions
Updated2026-09-08
Read~9 min
01

Verdict at a glance

Bottom line: Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash when coding depth matter most; choose Doubao Seed Evolving when its stronger dimensions is the priority.

Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash if you…

  • Best-coding Flash yet
  • Native text/image/audio/video
  • Very fast and low-priced
  • Stronger agentic reasoning
  • Best for: Fast tasks, Multimodal, Coding

Choose Doubao Seed Evolving if you…

  • Continuously updated
  • 1M context
  • Good Chinese
  • ByteDance ecosystem
  • Best for: Chinese, Long context, Continuously evolving
02

Head-to-head aggregate scores

Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 26 tracked models.

Gemini 3.8 Flash Higher overall
Google · #12 overall
Overall73
Coding73
Multimodal88
VS
Doubao Seed Evolving
ByteDance · #18 overall
Overall68
Coding67
Multimodal83

Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.

03

Specs & pricing — every field side by side

List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.

DimensionGemini 3.8 FlashDoubao Seed EvolvingVerdict
VendorGoogle (US)ByteDance (CN)Different vendors
Released2026.092026.07Gemini 3.8 Flash is newer
Overall (rank)73 · #1268 · #18Gemini 3.8 Flash +5
Coding73 · #1367 · #18Gemini 3.8 Flash +6
Multimodal88 · #983 · #12Gemini 3.8 Flash +5
Context window1M1MTie
Max output64K256KGemini 3.8 Flash longer
Effective-context9092Doubao Seed Evolving more reliable
Input $/1M$0.75$0.83Gemini 3.8 Flash cheaper
Output $/1M$3.75$4.17Gemini 3.8 Flash cheaper
Cache discountnonecustomDoubao Seed Evolving deeper
Speed~85 tok/s~60 tok/sGemini 3.8 Flash faster
TTFT0.3s0.5sGemini 3.8 Flash snappier
Function calling7882Doubao Seed Evolving ahead
Refusal rate~10%~10%Tie
English8870Gemini 3.8 Flash
Chinese7493Doubao Seed Evolving
Modalitiestext, image, audio, videotext, imagedifferent coverage
Open weightsNoNoBoth closed
Fine-tuningYesNo
Free tierGemini App free; API free tier; intro price through Dec 31, 2026Doubao App free
SOC2 / no-trainyes / yesno / yes
Private deploymentNoYesDoubao Seed Evolving

Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 26-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.

04

Dimension-by-dimension analysis

Reasoning & overall intelligence

Gemini 3.8 Flash leads the overall aggregate by 5 points (73 vs 68). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Doubao Seed Evolving remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.

Agentic coding

This is a modest gap: Gemini 3.8 Flash scores 73 against 67. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops Gemini 3.8 Flash needs fewer correction turns; Doubao Seed Evolving is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.

Multimodal

Gemini 3.8 Flash leads multimodal 88 vs 83. A concrete modality difference: Gemini 3.8 Flash additionally handles audio, video.

Speed & latency

Gemini 3.8 Flash is faster in interactive use: ~85 tok/s with 0.3s TTFT versus ~60 tok/s with 0.5s TTFT (about 1.4× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.

Context: window vs usable recall

Nominal windows are 1M for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 1M for Doubao Seed Evolving. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: Gemini 3.8 Flash advertises 1M but Doubao Seed Evolving scores higher on effective-context (92 vs 90), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.

Price & total cost

Gemini 3.8 Flash is the cheaper API at $0.75/$3.75 versus Doubao Seed Evolving at $0.83/$4.17 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 1.1× lower.

Chinese vs English

English: Gemini 3.8 Flash 88 vs Doubao Seed Evolving 70. Chinese: 74 vs 93. For Chinese-language production, Doubao Seed Evolving is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.

Tool use & ecosystem

Function-calling score: Gemini 3.8 Flash 78 vs Doubao Seed Evolving 82, so Doubao Seed Evolving has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from Gemini 3.8 Flash. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.

05

Cost worked example — same workload, real token math

Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.

Scenario · per monthGemini 3.8 FlashDoubao Seed EvolvingGap
List priceno cache applied$188100M in × $0.75  +  30M out × $3.75$208100M in × $0.83  +  30M out × $4.171.11×gap
With caching90% of inputs cache-hit$188no published cache discount$208no published cache discount1.11×gap

Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.

06

Decision tree

IF the workload is agentic or multi-file coding and a wrong first pass is expensive  →  choose Gemini 3.8 Flash (coding 73 vs 67).
IF you serve real-time users and latency is a product KPI  →  choose Gemini 3.8 Flash (~85 tok/s, 0.3s TTFT).
IF you are cost-driven at scale on routine, high-volume workloads  →  choose Gemini 3.8 Flash ($$0.75/$$3.75 per 1M in/out).
IF long-document recall has to be near-perfect  →  choose Doubao Seed Evolving (effective context 92 vs 90).
07

Frequently asked questions

How do costs compare at 100M tokens/month with caching?
At 100M input + 30M output with 90% of inputs cache-hit, Gemini 3.8 Flash is about $188/month and Doubao Seed Evolving about $208/month after cache discounts ($188 and $208 at list).
Does the bigger context window actually matter?
Nominal windows are Gemini 3.8 Flash (1M) and Doubao Seed Evolving (1M), but usable recall follows the effective-context score (90 vs 92). Prefer the higher effective-context model for long-document work where nothing can be missed.
How do they differ for Chinese-language and data-residency use?
Doubao Seed Evolving is the Chinese model (Chinese score 93, domestic cloud, possible private deployment) while Gemini 3.8 Flash is the global model (Chinese 74, overseas API). Pick by language quality, access path and where data must reside.
Which one supports fine-tuning?
Gemini 3.8 Flash supports fine-tuning; Doubao Seed Evolving does not at this tier. If you plan to adapt the model to a narrow domain, that is a concrete differentiator.
Which handles multimodal inputs better?
Multimodal scores are 88 (Gemini 3.8 Flash) vs 83 (Doubao Seed Evolving), with modality coverage text/image/audio/video versus text/image. Match the model to the input types your product actually receives.
What is the single-line recommendation?
Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash for Fast tasks, Multimodal; choose Doubao Seed Evolving for Chinese, Long context.