Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5.3-Codex

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

Winner summary

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 6 of 8 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · knowledge.

Category leads
speed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#38 by perf·no signal
QUIET
GPT-5.3-Codex
#86 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Best value
1.3x better value than GPT-5.3-Codex
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.7 pts/$
$7.00/M
GPT-5.3-Codex
6.6 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Low risk
OpenAI logo
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Medium risk
Head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5.3-Codex
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +3.1
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
62.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.4
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
57.2
GPT-5.3-Codex
54.0
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.8
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
31.7
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.6
GPT-5.3-Codex
17.8
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.8
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.8
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.1
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
77.3
WeirdML
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +7.2
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
79.3
Full benchmark table
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5.3-Codex
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?"
59.162.2
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.
55.553.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
57.254.0
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
33.531.7
PostTrainBench
21.617.8
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.
75.674.8
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.
78.477.3
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
72.179.3
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
OpenAI logoGPT-5.3-Codex$1.75$14.00400K tokens (~200 books)$48.13