Multimodal
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 86.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8 Max leads
Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max
Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 54.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
9 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
14 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
9 Shared
43 Qwen3.8 Max only
- Shared results
- 9
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 14
- Qwen3.8 Max only
- 43
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 86.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 67.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 78.3
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 50.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Qwen3.8 Max
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8 Max
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8 Max
- 82.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.8 Max | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 82.6 | 86.3 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.8 Max leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | 86.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 67.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 77.1 | 78.3 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 50.2 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 31.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXiv
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.8 Max
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Qwen3.8 Max
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationQwen3.8 Max
qwen3.8-max
Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingQwen3.8 Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricingDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationQwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Qwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogQwen3.8 Max
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Qwen3.8 Max
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Qwen3.8 Max
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Qwen3.8 Max
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
Qwen3.8 Max
2026-08-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 54.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence66 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max74.8%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max70.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max52.4%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max27.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max56.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max86.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max19.4%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max66.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max85.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MobileWorld
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max77.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max67.7%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max56.6%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max73.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max41.0%SourceNot directly comparable
PaperBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max93.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceQwen3.8 Max92.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%SourceQwen3.8 Max43.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%SourceQwen3.8 Max—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max92.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max43.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceQwen3.8 Max82.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceQwen3.8 Max93.5%SourceQwen3.8 Max leads this result
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceQwen3.8 Max77.8%SourceQwen3.8 Max leads this result
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceQwen3.8 Max75.0%SourceQwen3.8 Max leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceQwen3.8 Max84.5%SourceQwen3.8 Max leads this result
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceQwen3.8 Max24.0%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceQwen3.8 Max80.4%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MathVision
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max95.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max97.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max82.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max91.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max49.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max69.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max63.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max90.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max88.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max82.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max90.8%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max81.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—Qwen3.8 Max82.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 54.8, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 3, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.