Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Gemini 1.0 Pro
40
0/8 categoriesGemma 4 31B
73
Winner · 4/8 categoriesGemini 1.0 Pro· Gemma 4 31B
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 1.0 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 73 to 40. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 31B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 80 against 5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU-Pro, 54% to 85.2%.
Gemma 4 31B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 1.0 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 32K for Gemini 1.0 Pro.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 36% | — |
| BrowseComp | 51% | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | 36% | — |
| CodingGemma 4 31B wins | ||
| HumanEval | 54% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 5% | — |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 80% |
| Multimodal & GroundedGemma 4 31B wins | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 73% | 76.9% |
| OfficeQA Pro | 62% | — |
| ReasoningGemma 4 31B wins | ||
| MuSR | 58% | — |
| BBH | 73% | 74.4% |
| LongBench v2 | 51% | — |
| MRCRv2 | 54% | 66.4% |
| KnowledgeGemma 4 31B wins | ||
| MMLU | 62% | — |
| GPQA | 62% | 84.3% |
| SuperGPQA | 60% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 54% | 85.2% |
| HLE | 1% | 26.5% |
| FrontierScience | 54% | — |
| SimpleQA | 60% | — |
| HLE w/o tools | — | 19.5% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | 77% | — |
| Multilingual | ||
| MGSM | 72% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 64% | — |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | 62% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | 58% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | 60% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | 59% | — |
| BRUMO 2025 | 61% | — |
| MATH-500 | 72% | — |
Gemma 4 31B is ahead overall, 73 to 40. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 54% and 85.2%.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.3 versus 44.3. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 80 versus 5. Gemini 1.0 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 53.9. Inside this category, MRCRv2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 68.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.