Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs o3
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 16/17 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 16 of 17 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · reasoning.
Category leads
speed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewreasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewmath·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewcoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#74 by perf·no signal
o3
#91 by perf·no signal
Best value
o3
1.3x better value than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
8.1 pts/$
$7.00/M
o3
10.8 pts/$
$5.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
17 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewo3
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
o3 leads by +14.7
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
o3
36.1
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +30.4
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
68.8
o3
38.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
46.5
o3
30.4
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.3
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
o3
17.2
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +37.2
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
o3
60.8
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +70.6
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
o3
6.5
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +18.2
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
o3
18.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +14.6
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
o3
2.1
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +16.4
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
o3
75.8
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +13.8
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
o3
8.8
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +27.4
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
o3
16.3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +11.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
o3
83.9
EnigmaEval
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +6.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
19.8
o3
13.1
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +31.8
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
o3
43.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +24.3
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
o3
53.0
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +13.3
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
o3
62.3
WeirdML
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +19.7
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
o3
52.4
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | o3 |
|---|---|---|
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 | 36.1 |
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 | 38.4 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.5 | 30.4 |
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 | 17.2 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 98.0 | 60.8 |
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 | 6.5 |
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 | 18.7 |
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 | 2.1 |
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 | 75.8 |
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. | 22.6 | 8.8 |
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 | 16.3 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.6 | 83.9 |
EnigmaEval | 19.8 | 13.1 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 75.5 | 43.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 77.3 | 53.0 |
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 | 62.3 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.1 | 52.4 |
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 | |
| $2.00 | $8.00 | 200K tokens (~100 books) | $35.00 |