Reducto vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
A dedicated extraction API against the cheapest raw model. On single-page documents and photographed scans Gemini 3.5 Flash is better than Reducto and costs a fraction of a cent. On anything long Gemini is the worst system in the test, with runs that failed outright, while Reducto returns most of the content. Sixteen points overall in Reducto's favour, plus a product around it that Gemini doesn't have.
Gemini here is Google's fast general model called with a file and a field list. Reducto is a document extraction API with a premium mode. On one-page forms, receipts, and photographed or rotated pages Gemini was second only to DocuPipe and clearly ahead of Reducto. If your corpus is single pages, Gemini is the more accurate of these two and cheaper by far.
The picture reverses with length. On registers, catalogs, and directories of six pages or more Gemini posted the lowest average of any system and had several runs fail outright. Reducto read the same documents and returned most of the entries. On multi-page statements Reducto was ahead, and on non-English documents well ahead, though on Hebrew and Arabic specifically the two were close. Chinese and Japanese scans went narrowly to Reducto.
On resilience Gemini's problem is total on long documents and absent on short ones, and nothing about the call changes that. Reducto's problems are smaller. Its ranked result needs Deep Extract rather than the default, and it under-returns on the longest documents without saying so. We'd trust Reducto further on a mixed corpus by a wide margin.
On price Gemini is the cheapest thing we tested, at $1.50 and $9 per million tokens, well under a cent per page, with a free tier for development. Reducto publishes about three cents a page and $150 of free usage, with the Deep Extract mode we ranked not priced publicly. Both are inexpensive. Only one includes a product.
Reducto's product is Studio with a bounding-box citation viewer, five APIs, SDKs in Python, Node, and Go, an MCP server and CLI, signed webhooks on async endpoints, deletion within a day by default, SOC 2 Type II, and zero retention, EU residency, and a HIPAA BAA on the Growth plan. Gemini offers a good general API with the largest PDF page limit of the raw models, a Files API and structured output, an AI Studio for prompts, and no dashboard, webhooks, document jobs, or retention controls, with a data policy that differs between its free and paid tiers.
So Gemini for high-volume single-page work where cost dominates and you have a pipeline. Reducto for anything with length, and for anyone who wants a product rather than a model.
Multi-page or mixed corpora, non-English documents, and teams that want a pipeline builder, SDKs, and compliance terms.
High-volume single-page work such as receipts and photographed forms, with your own pipeline, where cost per page decides.
How it scores, area by area
The accuracy score comes from the benchmark. Every other score is ours, with the reason written next to it. We use the same weights on every review and comparison.
| Area | Reducto | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy35% of total | 8.9Ranked 3rd of 8 systems on the benchmark. | 7.3Ranked 6th of 8 systems on the benchmark. |
| Resilience15% of total | 6.0The ranked result needs Deep Extract, a different mode from the default, and on long documents it returns fewer entries than exist without saying so. | 3.0Several runs failed outright and the long-document average was the lowest in the test; excellent one day and empty the next depending on page count. |
| Price15% of total | 7.0Published $0.03 per page is among the lowest, but the ranked Deep Extract mode is not priced publicly. | 10.0$1.50 and $9 per million tokens plus a free tier; well under a cent per page. |
| Getting started10% of total | 7.0Studio pipeline builder with a citation viewer and $150 of free usage; no schema-drafting assistant stated. | 4.0No document product, though the free tier makes trying it trivial. |
| API and integration10% of total | 7.0Four SDKs plus an MCP server and CLI, async endpoints with signed webhooks; custom webhooks gated to the Growth plan. | 5.0Strong general SDKs, the largest PDF page limit of the direct models, a Files API and structured output; no document jobs or webhooks. |
| Data control7.5% of total | 7.0Documents deleted within 24 hours by default; zero retention and EU residency on Growth and up. | 4.0Platform policy only, and it differs between the free and paid tiers. |
| Compliance7.5% of total | 7.0SOC 2 Type II; HIPAA BAA only on Growth and up. | 6.0Platform certifications apply to the API; your pipeline is your responsibility. |
| Overallweighted | 7.5weighted score out of 10 | 6.2weighted score out of 10 |
How each area is scored
- Accuracy (35%). The benchmark result, on a 0 to 10 scale.
- Resilience (15%). Does it just work? Fewer modes to choose, no tuning to reach the ranked result, no runs that fail outright, and no documents that come back quietly empty. Informed by the benchmark, judged by us.
- Price (15%). Published cost per page for parse plus extraction, cheapest scoring highest. Unpublished pricing is marked down.
- Getting started (10%). How far you get without a sales call: a dashboard, a free tier with no card, help authoring schemas, a test environment.
- API and integration (10%). Webhooks and which tier they are on, SDKs, no-code connectors, whether the API is built around document jobs at all.
- Data control (7.5%). Deletion controls, scheduled retention, zero-retention availability and on which tier, choice of region.
- Compliance (7.5%). Certifications stated on public pages: SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA with a BAA, GDPR, private deployment options.
By document type
Average accuracy on each group of benchmark documents, both systems on the same files. Every document and score is on the evidence page.
| Document type | Reducto | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Statements, filings, reports2 to 5 pages · 21 documents | 93.1% Good | 87.5% Good |
| Short forms, invoices, receiptsone page · 30 documents | 90.2% Good | 94.1% Good |
| Long registers, catalogs, directories6 pages and up · 21 documents | 84.5% Good | 28.3% Weak |
| Non-English documents12 languages · 25 documents | 84.0% Good | 68.9% Mixed |
| Scans and photosimages, not PDFs · 7 documents | 83.2% Good | 95.5% Strong |
Price, product, and policies
Full reviews: Reducto, Gemini 3.5 Flash.
| Reducto | Gemini 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Pay-as-you-go per page, with Parse and Extract billed separately. Volume and enterprise plans on request. | Per token through the Gemini API. No document-specific product or plan. |
| Entry price | $150 of free usage to start. Then Parse $10 per 1,000 pages and Extract $20 per 1,000 pages. | $1.50 per million input tokens, $9 per million output tokens on the paid tier. |
| Cost per page | $0.03 per page for parse plus extract on the standard tier. Deep Extract, the ranked config, is not priced separately on the public page. | Depends on page size and output length; typically well under a cent to a couple of cents per page, the cheapest of the direct models. |
| Free tier | Yes. $150 of usage on signup. | Yes. A rate-limited free tier for development. |
| Pay as you go | Yes. The standard tier is pure pay-as-you-go. | Yes. Pure usage billing. |
| Dashboard | Yes. Reducto Studio: a visual pipeline builder to configure, test and deploy multi-step workflows in the browser, with a citation viewer down to the bounding box. 5 seats on the standard tier. No schema-drafting assistant stated. | No document product. AI Studio for trying prompts; upload, review and results tooling is yours to build. |
| Webhooks | Signed webhooks on all async endpoints per the docs; the pricing page lists custom webhooks as a Growth-and-up feature. | None for document jobs. You run the pipeline. |
| API and SDKs | Python, Node.js, Go and REST, plus an MCP server and a CLI. Classify, Parse, Extract, Split and Edit APIs; async endpoints for every operation. | Official SDKs in Python, JavaScript, Go and others. PDF input up to 1,000 pages or 50 MB, a Files API with 48-hour storage, structured output. |
| Data retention | Documents deleted within 24 hours by default; zero-retention agreement on Growth and up. EU data residency available. | Governed by Google's API data policies, which differ between the free and paid tiers. Nothing document-specific. |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA BAA on Growth and up. | Google's platform certifications apply to the API; your pipeline around it is your responsibility. |
We checked these against the vendors' own pricing and documentation pages on 2026-09-11. Sources: Reducto: reducto.ai, docs.reducto.ai; Gemini 3.5 Flash: ai.google.dev. Prices change, so confirm before you budget.
Frequently asked
Is Reducto more accurate than Gemini?
Overall yes, 89.38% to 72.98% in our benchmark. Gemini was ahead on single-page documents and scans. Reducto was far ahead on long and multi-page documents, where Gemini had the lowest average in the test.
Is Gemini cheaper than Reducto?
Yes, by a wide margin. Well under a cent per page against Reducto's published three cents. Gemini includes no document product. Reducto includes Studio, SDKs, and webhooks.
Scores are macro-average field accuracy from the DocuBench 0.2.0, 72-document run. Every document, answer key, and raw extraction is open in the explorer; the scoring rules are on the methodology page, and the replication kit re-runs the scorer. A document a system could not process scores zero rather than being dropped.