Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 18/22 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 18 of 22 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · reasoning.
Category leads
speed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewreasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#74 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3 Pro
#52 by perf·no signal
Best value
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.1 pts/$
$7.00/M
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Head to head
22 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3 Pro
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +23.6
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +29.5
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
46.5
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +15.1
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
33.5
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +23.0
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +46.0
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +8.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1447.0
Gemini 3 Pro
1438.8
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1486.4
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.7
Balrog
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.1
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
57.0
Gemini 3 Pro
58.1
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +24.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
55.0
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.7
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
36.9
Gemini 3 Pro
37.6
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +2.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
16.7
Gemini 3 Pro
18.8
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.0
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.1
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.9
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.6
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.4
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
43.7
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.6
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.8
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.5
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.4
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.3
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.7
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +10.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
WeirdML
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.2
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 21.4 | 45.0 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 68.8 | 39.4 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.5 | 41.3 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 33.5 | 18.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 98.0 | 75.0 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 77.1 | 31.1 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1447.0 | 1438.8 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1486.4 | 1485.7 |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 57.0 | 58.1 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 55.0 | 31.0 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 36.9 | 37.6 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 16.7 | 18.8 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 92.1 | 90.2 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 22.6 | 18.6 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 43.7 | 34.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.6 | 91.4 |
PostTrainBench | 21.6 | 18.1 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 75.5 | 71.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 77.3 | 72.9 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 75.6 | 72.9 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 80.2 | 69.4 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.1 | 69.9 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| — | — | — | — |