Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.3/100
Margin
1.7pts
winning →
57.01/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B share 23 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 32 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
23
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
24
Qwen3.5 397B only
32
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.5 397B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 57.01 versus 55.3. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 83.9% to 79%. Gemini 3.1 Pro does hit back in reasoning, 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 $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 3.3x on output cost alone. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

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 Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryGemini 3.1 ProΔQwen3.5 397B
MathGemini 3.1 Pro31.8Margin→ 58.8Qwen3.5 397B90.6
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro77.1Margin← 13.9Qwen3.5 397B63.2
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro82.6Margin← 3.0Qwen3.5 397B79.6
AgenticGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.5
CodingGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B66.5
KnowledgeGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.6
MultilingualGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 3.1 ProB · Qwen3.5 397B

  1. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 83.9%B 79%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 4.9
    MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 79%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 80.2%B 80.8%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 0.6
    CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 80.8%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputQwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sGemini 3.1 Pro has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sQwen3.5 397B2.44 sQwen3.5 397B reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.1 Pro1MQwen3.5 397B128KGemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%56.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
DeepSearchQASource 69.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%95.6%Tie
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.4%19.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 32.0%15.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 23.2%23.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 965962Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Gert LabsSource 56.87%46.76%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 13.3%14.2%Qwen3.5 397B leads
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
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —52.5%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —62%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —51.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —68.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —43.7%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —37.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —36.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —46.1%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.2%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —74.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
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%48.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 58.9%42.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —76.2%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —83.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.9%Not comparable
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 77.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%65.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 17.7%1.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
LongBench v2Source —63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource —68.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
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%33.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 94.1%89.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 44.7%27.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 32.9%-29.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 55.3%31.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 49.9%89.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GPQASource —88.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —70.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —87.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.9%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93%Not comparable
HLESource —28.7%Not comparable
MathQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 36.900%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 16.700%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —94.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —92.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.9%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 93.2%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.1%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
MMMU-ProSource 83.9%79%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CharXivSource 80.2%80.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
ERQASource 69.4%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 72.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 84.4%65.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ZeroBenchSource 29.0%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 81.3%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 82.4%77.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1284—Not comparable
MathVisionSource —88.6%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.7%Not comparable
V*Source —95.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.5 397BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 77.1%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 79%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 63.2. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 79.6. Inside this category, ScreenSpot Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.