Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); Gemini 3 Pro #19 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemini 3 Pro share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 12 to Gemini 3 Pro.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.73 to 50.83. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 81.1 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 73.2% to 81.4%.
Gemini 3 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 8.0x on output cost alone. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 7.9 | Gemini 3 Pro81.1 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro31.1 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Pro32.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 81.4%Winner: Gemini 3 ProΔ 8.2CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; Gemini 3 Pro scored 81.4%. Gemini 3 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Gemini 3 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Gemini 3 Pro109 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Gemini 3 Pro32.65 s | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Gemini 3 Pro2M | Gemini 3 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 87.1% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | 63.23% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| JobBenchSource | — | 11.4% | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 39.5% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 90.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 37.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | 15.8% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 55.9% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 90.9% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.8% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3 Pro wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 73.2% | 81.4% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.5% | 80.2% | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.2% | 70.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.73 to 50.83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 81.4%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.