Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 43.3
- Estimated · #105/151
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
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.
8 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 8
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 38.1
- Estimated · #148/183
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 51.8
- Estimated · #79/181
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 37.5
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 43.3Estimated · #105/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 38.1Estimated · #148/183 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.8Estimated · #79/181 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 37.5Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- $0.02
- 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
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- $0.34
- 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
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
- $0.5
- 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-LiteSakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Google Gemini API pricingSakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Not sourced
Cached-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 pricingSakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Non-Reasoning
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
2026-03-03
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
2026-07-24
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.017 vs $0.34. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.025 vs $0.5.
- 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 evidence8 rows
Agentic
Coding
Knowledge
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2%SourceSakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1?
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1?
Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.001 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and $0.02 on Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1; repository review costs $0.017 and $0.34; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.025 and $0.5. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite or Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Sakana Fugu-Ultra v1.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.