Reasoning
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 31.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.41 versus 56.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
8 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
No clear pick
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
15 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
8 Shared
4 Gemini 3 Pro only
- Shared results
- 8
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 15
- Gemini 3 Pro only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 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.
Math
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 32.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3 Pro leads
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Gemini 3 Pro
- 81.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Gemini 3 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemini 3 Pro | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 77.1 | 31.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Math | 31.8 | 32.9 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Gemini 3 Pro leads |
| Multimodal | 82.6 | 81.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 |
| Knowledge | 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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Pro: 77.1%Gemini 3 Pro: 31.1%Normalized gap 46.0Gemini 3.1 Pro source Gemini 3 Pro sourceMMMU-Pro
Multimodal
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
CharXiv
Multimodal
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
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 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3 Pro
- $0.56
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Gemini 3 Pro 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 ProGemini 3 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro
2M
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationGemini 3 Pro
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 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingGemini 3 Pro
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationGemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogGemini 3 Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Gemini 3 Pro
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
Gemini 3 Pro
2025-11-18
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 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.41 versus 56.49, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2 vs $0.56.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented window (2M).
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 evidence27 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro56.87%Gemini 3 Pro63.23%Gemini 3 Pro leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Gemini 3 Pro11.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro32.03%Gemini 3 Pro14.30%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro36.900%Gemini 3 Pro37.600%Gemini 3 Pro leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro16.700%Gemini 3 Pro18.750%Gemini 3 Pro leads this result
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceGemini 3 Pro81%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceGemini 3 Pro81.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro leads this result
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceGemini 3 Pro72.7%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceGemini 3 Pro—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Gemini 3 Pro86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Gemini 3 Pro87.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Gemini 3 Pro88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the higher public score estimate, 67.41 versus 56.49, 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 Pro or Gemini 3 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 Pro or Gemini 3 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 Pro or Gemini 3 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro and $0.008 on Gemini 3 Pro; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2 and $0.56. Gemini 3 Pro has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemini 3 Pro?
Gemini 3 Pro has the larger documented context window: 2M, compared with 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.