Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored); Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; 14 to Gemma 4 31B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 6
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Gemma 4 31B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.
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 3.5 Flash-Lite | Δ | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2 | Margin← 12.6 | Gemma 4 31B41.6 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B52.9 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B76.9 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 output | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1M | Gemma 4 31B256K | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1140 | 804 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 26.8% | 14.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.0% | 15.2% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 634 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | 15.1% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 59.9% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 35.26% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 28.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 37.3% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 36.4% | Not comparable |
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 54.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.3% | 43.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 43.4% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 41.6% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 75.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 36.5% | 29.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 83.8% | 85.7% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 17.5% | 22.7% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 6.9% | -45.4% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 30.3% | 19.9% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 33.5% | 81.6% | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 26.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 19.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 54.2 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.