Model A

Google

60.5/100

Supported · Public rank #72

90% interval 49.0–72.0

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Gemma 4 31B

Google

58.69/100

Supported · Public rank #83

90% interval 42.8–74.6

Decision reading

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 resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
No clear pick
The like-for-like coding result is a practical tie on the public lane (within 0.5 points).
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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
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.

10 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only

8 Gemma 4 31B only

Shared results: 0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only: 10
Gemma 4 31B only: 8
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.6; Supported · #121/183
Gemma 4 31B: 43.5; Supported · #124/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Practical tie

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 53.0; Supported · #71/181
Gemma 4 31B: 47.8; Supported · #104/181
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 43.4; Estimated · #104/151
Gemma 4 31B: 27.6; Supported · #140/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 76.1; #16/48
Gemma 4 31B: 57.8; #30/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 60.8; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Gemma 4 31B: 70.1; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Gemma 4 31B: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Gemma 4 31B: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: Not ranked
Gemma 4 31B: 92.6; #12/120
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite	Gemma 4 31B	Basis	Reading
Coding	43.6Supported · #121/183	43.5Supported · #124/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows	Practical tie
Knowledge	53.0Supported · #71/181	47.8Supported · #104/181	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads · intervals overlap
Agentic	43.4Estimated · #104/151	27.6Supported · #140/151	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	76.1#16/48	57.8#30/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows	70.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	92.6#12/120	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.00155; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.0225; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.037; Fits in one request
Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Gemma 4 31B

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

2026-07-21

Gemma 4 31B

2026-04-02

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: Both entries list Google as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

API / mo$2,100

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Gemma 4 31B

API / mo$0

Self-host / mo$429

Break-even—

Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence18 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B35.26%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B41.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B75.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite83.8%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite85.8%
Source
Gemma 4 31B—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B84.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B85.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B26.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B19.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—
Gemma 4 31B76.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

The like-for-like coding row is a practical tie on the public lane, 43.6 against 43.5, inside the 0.5-point band BenchLM treats as level.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 43.4 to 27.6. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

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 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Knowledge

Agentic

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B