Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 3.1 Pro estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 22 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 36 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 26
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 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 59. 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 76.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 83.9% to 75.3%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 56.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 6.3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 75.3%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 8.6MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 80.2%B 78%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 2.2CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Gemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 68.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 95.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.1% | 27.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 962 | 1049 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 49.91% | 42.65% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| 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 | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | 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% | 41.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 53.8% | 34.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 35.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | 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% | 31.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 84.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 20.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | -21.4% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 18.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 36.900% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 16.700% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 75.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | 78% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | 58.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| 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% | 75.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1285 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 64.4% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 83.9% and 75.3%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 76.3. Inside this category, SimpleVQA 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.