Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Nova Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 12 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); Nova Pro #196 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Nova Pro share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 0 to Nova Pro.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 35
- Nova Pro only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Nova Pro is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 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 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Nova 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 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Δ | Nova Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | Nova ProNot measured |
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | MarginNo overlap | Nova ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | MarginNo overlap | Nova ProNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Nova ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | Nova Pro141 tok/s | Nova Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | Nova Pro0.81 s | Nova Pro reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Nova Pro128K | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 14% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.2% | — | 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 | 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 |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 7.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 49.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 3.4% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | -47.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 17.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 77.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | 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% | 44.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1284 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Nova Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 38.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Nova Pro 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 Nova Pro today?
Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens Nova Pro: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.