Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Llama 4 Scout

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.3/100
Margin
15.4pts
← winning
39.87/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Llama 4 Scout #174 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Llama 4 Scout share 18 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 0 to Llama 4 Scout.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
18
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
29
Llama 4 Scout only
0
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Llama 4 Scout is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Scout. Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window at 10M, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.1 Pro.

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 scores and score margins for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Llama 4 Scout
CategoryGemini 3.1 ProΔLlama 4 Scout
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro77.1MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MathGemini 3.1 Pro31.8MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro82.6MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3.1 ProB · Llama 4 Scout

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 36.900%B 0.000%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 36.9
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; Llama 4 Scout scored 0.000%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputLlama 4 Scout$0 input / $0 outputLlama 4 Scout has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sLlama 4 Scout128 tok/sLlama 4 Scout has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sLlama 4 Scout0.70 sLlama 4 Scout reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.1 Pro1MLlama 4 Scout10MLlama 4 Scout lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 69.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%15.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.4%1.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 32.0%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.2%0.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 96590Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
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 0.0%—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
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
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%8.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 58.9%17.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 77.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%25.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 17.7%0.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
GPQA-DSource 94.3%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 45.4%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.6%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 71.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 46.5%10.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 94.1%58.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 44.7%4.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 32.9%-52.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 55.3%14.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 49.9%78.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 36.900%0.000%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 16.700%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 93.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
MMMU-ProSource 83.9%—Not comparable
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%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 82.4%52.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1284783Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProLlama 4 ScoutResult
AA-IFBenchSource 77.1%39.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Llama 4 Scout on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Llama 4 Scout today?

Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens Llama 4 Scout: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemini 3.1 Pro
API / mo$10,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Llama 4 Scout
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,278
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.