Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemma 4 12B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemma 4 12B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 7 to Gemma 4 12B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 31
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.1 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.3 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3.1 Pro's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 77.1 against 43.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 83.9% to 69.1%. Gemma 4 12B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemma 4 12B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro 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. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.
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 Pro | Δ | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 45.7 | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | Margin← 33.7 | Gemma 4 12B43.4 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 13.5 | Gemma 4 12B69.1 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 69.1%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 14.8MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Gemma 4 12B scored 69.1%. Gemini 3.1 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 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Gemma 4 12B256K | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 36.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 78.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | 5.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 22.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 75.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 14.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | -51.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 16.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 80.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GPQASource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
MathGemma 4 12B wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 69.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | 48.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | 69.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 79.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 73.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.3 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 69.1%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 43.4. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 69.1. Inside this category, MedXpertQA (MM) 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.