Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 73.2
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 88.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.7 Flash leads
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
1 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. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
2 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
1 Shared
14 Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 2
- Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
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 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 73.2 | 88.7 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Gemini 3.7 Flash leads |
| 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 | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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 3.7 Flash: 88.7%Normalized gap 15.5Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite source Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.00262
- 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.04875
- 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.2025
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower modeled cost
Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
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 3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.7 Flash
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Google Gemini API pricingGemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash
Not published
Google: Introducing Gemini 3.7 FlashDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentationDocumented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini Enterprise, Gemini app via Spark
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash launchReasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Non-Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
2026-03-03
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.017 vs $0.04875. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.025 vs $0.2025.
- 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 evidence17 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite38.46%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash14.9%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite0.00%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash43.6%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash65.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
GDM-MRCR v2 128K average
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash97%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash88.7%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash leads this result
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash34.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
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 3.7 Flash?
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 3.7 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.001 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.017 and $0.04875; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.025 and $0.2025. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.