This study sought to provide more insight into potential differences in progression of analogical reasoning comparing gifted with average-ability children taking into account age, using a dynamic testing approach, using graduated prompting techniques, in combination with microgenetic methods. The participants were between the ages of 5 and 8 years old and were divided into 4 subgroups: gifted unguided control (n = 37), gifted dynamic training (n = 41), average-ability unguided control (n = 95), and average-ability dynamic training (n = 93). We predicted that gifted and average-ability children would show differential progression in analogical reasoning, benefit differentially from a dynamic training procedure, and would show differential instructional needs. The two "ability categories" (i.e., gifted vs. average-ability) were found to show similar, rather than differential, progression paths, and to benefit from a training procedure, whereas gifted children outperform their average-ability peers in accuracy at each session. Likewise, no differences in need for instruction were found among these two groups. In general, moreover, younger children seemed to have lower accuracy scores, progress less, and need more help than older children. Implications of these findings for the research field of giftedness as well as for education of the gifted and talented are considered in the discussion.