Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 15 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 20
- Inkling only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 46. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 76.5 against 73.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 73.2% to 82%.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.25 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. That is roughly 3.1x on output cost alone. Inkling is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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.
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 | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | Margin→ 3.3 | Inkling76.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling68.6 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 73.2%B 82%Winner: InklingΔ 8.8CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 73.2%; Inkling scored 82%. Inkling 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 | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | — | 1258 | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 0.00% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
MultimodalInkling wins4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 46. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 73.2% and 82%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 73.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.