Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.3
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 54.66, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 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
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 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
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 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
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
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.
21 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
2 Shared
- Shared results
- 2
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 21
- Grok 4.3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Grok 4.3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Grok 4.3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 77.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 31.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 82.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 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.
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 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.3
- $0.0025
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost
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
- Grok 4.3
- $0.07
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 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 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
- Grok 4.3
- $0.09
- Fits in one request
Grok 4.3 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 ProGrok 4.3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Grok 4.3
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationGrok 4.3
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 pricingGrok 4.3
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationGrok 4.3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Grok 4.3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogGrok 4.3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Grok 4.3
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Grok 4.3
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
Grok 4.3
2026-04-30
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
- Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 54.66, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.136 vs $0.07. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2 vs $0.09.
- 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 evidence23 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro56.87%Grok 4.343.86%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared sourceGemini 3.1 Pro13.3%Grok 4.312.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
Coding
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceGrok 4.3—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Grok 4.3?
Grok 4.3 has the higher public score estimate, 64.2 versus 54.66, 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 Grok 4.3?
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 Grok 4.3?
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 Grok 4.3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro and $0.0025 on Grok 4.3; repository review costs $0.136 and $0.07; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2 and $0.09. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Grok 4.3?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Grok 4.3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.