Advertisement
Compare/Solar Open2 250B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Solar Open2 250BvsGemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Upstage

Solar Open2 250B

Input
—
Output
—
Speed
—
TTFT
—
Google

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Input
$1.5/M
Output
$9/M
Speed
216 tok/s
TTFT
18.36s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Faster (tok/s)
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Lower Latency
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Benchmarks (0-2)
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Pricing Comparison

MetricSolar Open2 250BGemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Input ($/M tokens)—$1.5
Output ($/M tokens)—$9
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)$2.40

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Solar Open2 250B
—
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
216 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Solar Open2 250B
—
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
18.36s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Solar Open2 250B is strongest on Coding Index (45.0), Intelligence Index (24.7). Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) leads on Coding Index (70.1), Intelligence Index (33.0).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Upstage and Google sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Upstage tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Google often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
24.733.0
Coding Index
45.070.1
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Solar Open2 250B0 wins
2 winsGemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Solar Open2 250B or Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)?

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $3.38/M tokens vs $—/M for Solar Open2 250B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Solar Open2 250B. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) generates tokens faster at 216 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) has lower time-to-first-token (18.36s vs —s).

When should I use Solar Open2 250B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)?

Choose based on your priorities: Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) for lower cost, Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) for stronger benchmark performance, and Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.