Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 27.4
- Gemma 4 31B
- 52.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 4 31B
Updated August 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 56.63, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 Gemini 2.5 Pro only
3 Shared
5 Gemma 4 31B only
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 4
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 63.8
- Gemma 4 31B
- 41.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 11.6
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- 76.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemma 4 31B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 31B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 27.4 | 52.9 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 63.8 | 41.6 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 11.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
GPQA
Knowledge
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.00625
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.0925
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 2.5 Pro
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 31B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 2.5 ProGemma 4 31B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemma 4 31B
API model ID
Gemini 2.5 Pro
gemini-2.5-pro
Google Gemini API pricingGemma 4 31B
gemma-4-31b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
$0.125 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGemma 4 31B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Gemma 4 31B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Gemma 4 31B
Provider availability
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Not sourced
Gemma 4 31B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideReasoning profile
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Proprietary
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 2.5 Pro
2025-03-01
Gemma 4 31B
2026-04-02
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Google as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 56.63, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
API / mo$8,438
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Gemma 4 31B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence12 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 2.5 Pro42.01%Gemma 4 31B35.26%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads this result
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro0.40%SourceGemma 4 31B—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Gemma 4 31B41.6%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Gemma 4 31B75.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemini 2.5 Pro83%SourceGemma 4 31B84.3%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
HLE
Gemini 2.5 Pro18.8%SourceGemma 4 31B26.5%SourceGemma 4 31B leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Gemma 4 31B85.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Gemma 4 31B19.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro—Gemma 4 31B76.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B has the higher public score estimate, 60.15 versus 56.63, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 31B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 31B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 31B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 15, 2026
Watch Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 4 31B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.