Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
65
o3-mini
56
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Coding
+7.7 difference
Knowledge
+15.9 difference
Gemma 4 31B
o3-mini
$0 / $0
$1.1 / $4.4
N/A
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
256K
200K
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 65 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 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. Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 65 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 84.3% and 77.2%.
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 61.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
o3-mini has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 49.3 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.