Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs A.X series
Updated July 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
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
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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. A.X series does not fit this workload in one request. A.X series has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
23 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 23
- A.X series only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- A.X series
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.1 Pro | A.X series | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 77.1 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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 |
| Multimodal | 82.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- A.X series
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
A.X series 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
- A.X series
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
A.X series 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
- A.X series
- API rate not published
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
A.X series does not fit this workload in one request. A.X series 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 ProA.X series
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
A.X series
64K
API model ID
Gemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationA.X series
Not sourced
Cached-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 pricingA.X series
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationA.X series
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.1 Pro
A.X series
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogA.X series
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
A.X series
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
A.X series
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
A.X series
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
A.X series
Not sourced
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger documented window (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 evidence23 rows
Agentic
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
Coding
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceA.X series—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or A.X series?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or A.X series?
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 A.X series?
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 A.X series?
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 A.X series?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 64K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 29, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs A.X series
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.