Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.

Winner summary

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 14 of 24 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · knowledge · coding.

Category leads
speed·Gemini 3.5 Flashagentic·Gemini 3.5 Flashreasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·Gemini 3.5 Flashknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3.5 Flashcoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#74 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Gemini 3 Pro
#52 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Gemini 3.5 Flash
#44 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Best value
1.5x better value than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.1 pts/$
$7.00/M
Gemini 3 Pro
no price
Gemini 3.5 Flash
11.9 pts/$
$5.25/M
Vendor risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Low risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Low risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Low risk
Head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3 ProGemini 3.5 Flash
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +7.6
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
37.5
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +1.3
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
70.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +3.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
46.5
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
Gemini 3.5 Flash
50.2
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +16.1
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
49.6
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.5
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
92.5
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.0
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
72.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +58.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1447.0
Gemini 3 Pro
1438.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
1505.5
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
1476.3
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +5.0
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
50.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +1.4
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
39.0
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
14.6
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.7
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
90.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.0
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
95.5
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.5
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
72.0
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
68.4
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +3.7
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
79.3
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
Gemini 3.5 Flash
62.6
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
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
26.8
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads by +3.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
Gemini 3.5 Flash
62.8
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
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.6
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
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
Full benchmark table
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3 ProGemini 3.5 Flash
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?"
21.445.037.5
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.
68.839.470.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
46.541.350.2
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
33.518.449.6
ARC-AGI
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
98.075.092.5
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.
77.131.172.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
1447.01438.81505.5
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
1486.41485.71476.3
Chess Puzzles
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
55.031.050.0
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.
36.937.639.0
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.
16.718.814.6
GPQA diamond
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
92.190.290.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
95.691.495.5
SimpleBench
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
75.571.772.0
SimpleQA Verified
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
77.372.968.4
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.
75.672.979.3
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
72.169.962.6
Balrog
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
57.058.1
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
26.826.8
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
59.662.8
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.
22.618.6
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%.
43.734.4
PostTrainBench
21.618.1
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.
80.269.4
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
ModelInputOutputContextProjected $/mo
Google DeepMind logoGemini 3.1 Pro Preview$2.00$12.001.0M tokens (~524 books)$45.00
Google DeepMind logoGemini 3 Pro
Google DeepMind logoGemini 3.5 Flash$1.50$9.001.0M tokens (~524 books)$33.75