Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 73.2
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 56.49 versus 51.18, 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Shared
20 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 0
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 20
- 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 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 73.2 | 82.6 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 77.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 31.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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.
CharXiv
Multimodal
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: 73.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro: 80.2%Normalized gap 7.0Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite source Gemini 3.1 Pro source
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 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.001
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.017
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- $0.025
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGemini 3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.1 Pro
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Google Gemini API pricingGemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
$0.025 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationDocumented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogReasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
2026-03-03
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
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
- Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 56.49 versus 51.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.017 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.025 vs $0.2.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence23 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 56.49 versus 51.18, 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 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
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 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
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 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.001 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro; repository review costs $0.017 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.025 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.