Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs MAI-Thinking-1
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and MAI-Thinking-1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 12 to MAI-Thinking-1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 46
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.1 Pro makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 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 and MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
MAI-Thinking-1 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 MAI-Thinking-1.
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 | MAI-Thinking-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 57.9 | MAI-Thinking-189.7 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-146.0 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-165.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-1Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-172.5 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-1Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MAI-Thinking-185.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | MAI-Thinking-1256K | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | 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 | 23.3% | — | 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 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | 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 |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 52.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 84.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| 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% | — | 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 | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 31% | Not comparable |
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | MAI-Thinking-1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MAI-Thinking-1?
Gemini 3.1 Pro and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or MAI-Thinking-1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.