Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 3.1 Pro estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Inkling share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 44 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 12 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 44
- Inkling only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 provisional aggregate, 88 to 69. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 82.6 against 76.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 83.9% to 73.5%. Inkling does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. That is roughly 2.6x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 Pro | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 65.3 | Inkling97.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 6.1 | Inkling76.5 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling68.6 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | InklingNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling51.7 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 73.5%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 10.4MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Inkling scored 73.5%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 80.2%B 82%Winner: InklingΔ 1.8CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; 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 Pro | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Inkling has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Inkling1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 962 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 49.91% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | 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 |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 87.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | 30% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
MathInkling wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 73.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | 82% | Inkling leads |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1320 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1285 | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Inkling?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 73.5%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Inkling?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Inkling?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 76.5. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.