Migration assistant

Replacing Gemini 3 Flash Preview?

Ranked replacement candidates, each shown with exactly what changes if you switch. Same-provider matches surface first because switching cost is lower; capability regressions are flagged in red.

GG
Migrating from

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Google Gemini · Gemini 3 · Preview
Input: $0.5/M Output: $3/M Context: 1M
View detail →
#1 RECOMMENDED

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Google Gemini · Gemini 2.5
same provider; 40% cheaper input; 1M context (larger)
View full detail →
What changes if you switch
Field Gemini 3 Flash Preview → Gemini 2.5 Flash Impact
Input price $0.5/M → $0.3/M Save 40%
Output price $3/M → $2.5/M Save 17%
Context window 1M tokens → 1M tokens +5% larger
Vision input ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Audio input ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Video input ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Function calling ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Structured output (JSON) ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Prompt caching ✓ supported → ✓ supported Preserved
Lifecycle Preview → Active Generally available
Other candidates
#2

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Google Gemini
same provider; 80% cheaper input; 1M context (larger)
Details →
Input price: Save 80%Output price: Save 87%Context window: +5% largerLifecycle: Generally available
#3

Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite

Google Gemini
same provider; 50% cheaper input; same context window
Details →
Input price: Save 50%Output price: Save 50%Lifecycle: Generally available
#4

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Google Gemini
same provider; 80% cheaper input; 1M context (larger); loses 1 capability
Details →
Input price: Save 80%Output price: Save 87%Context window: +5% largerPrompt caching: LOST — re-evaluate before switchingLifecycle: Generally available
#5

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Google Gemini
same provider; 150% more expensive input; 1M context (larger)
Details →
Input price: +150% more expensiveOutput price: +233% more expensiveContext window: +5% largerLifecycle: Generally available
Methodology

How candidates are ranked

Candidates are ranked by how much of the source model's profile each one preserves — weighing switching cost (same provider or model family surface first), capability parity (what you keep versus what you'd lose), context window, and pricing direction. A candidate that is itself deprecated is pushed down the list; one that's already retired is never recommended.

Ranking is purely algorithmic — no editorial weighting, no paid placement. Every value is pulled from each provider's own documentation; click any model name to see the source-linked detail.