Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.4 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 14/19 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 14 of 19 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · speed · agentic.
Category leads
reasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·GPT-5.4 Promath·GPT-5.4 Prospeed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewarena·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#38 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
GPT-5.4 Pro
#26 by perf·no signal
Best value
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
13.6x better value than GPT-5.4 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.7 pts/$
$7.00/M
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
GPT-5.4 Pro
0.6 pts/$
$105.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
19 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3 ProGPT-5.4 Pro
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.5
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
94.5
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.4 Pro leads by +6.2
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
83.3
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.4 Pro leads by +3.6
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
58.6
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
GPT-5.4 Pro leads by +12.4
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
50.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
GPT-5.4 Pro leads by +18.8
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
37.5
GPQA diamond
GPT-5.4 Pro leads by +0.7
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
92.8
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
68.9
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
GPT-5.4 Pro
47.8
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +14.0
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
59.1
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.1
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
55.5
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +15.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
57.2
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
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +18.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1455.7
Gemini 3 Pro
1437.6
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +6.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
1492.6
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
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
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 +9.0
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
78.4
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 | GPT-5.4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
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 | 94.5 |
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. | 77.1 | 31.1 | 83.3 |
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 | 58.6 |
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 | 50.0 |
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. | 16.7 | 18.8 | 37.5 |
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 | 92.8 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 75.5 | 71.7 | 68.9 |
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 | 47.8 |
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?" | 59.1 | 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. | 55.5 | 39.4 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 57.2 | 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 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1455.7 | 1437.6 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1492.6 | 1486.2 | — |
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 | — |
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. | 78.4 | 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 | |
| — | — | — | — | |
| $30.00 | $180.00 | 1.1M tokens (~525 books) | $675.00 |
People also compared
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5.5Claude Mythos Preview vs Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5.4 Pro vs phi-3-small 7.4BGPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507GPT-5.4 Pro vs Grok 3 Mini BetaGemini 2.0 Flash Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 2.0 Flash Lite vs Gemini 3 ProGemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Gemma 4 31B