Capability
56.4/100
field median 59.1
#101 of 230 ranked models
Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.
See the free Radar BriefReleased Feb 19, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of September 2, 2026 · How the score is built
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #9. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
23 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #129.
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
56.4/100
field median 59.1
#101 of 230 ranked models
Price
$2input / $12 output
input median $1
cached $0.20 · batch + cache $0.20 · blended $7
Speed
103tok/s
field median 90 tok/s
First token 22.15 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000
Maximum output length is tracked separately
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Gemini 3.1 Pro category percentile values
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #129 of 143Percentile 10thWeight 22%5 benchmarksMixed sources | 34.0 | #129 of 143 | 10th | 22% | 5 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| CodingRank #87 of 148Percentile 41stWeight 20%3 benchmarksMixed sources | 49.5 | #87 of 148 | 41st | 20% | 3 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified | 72.4 | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| KnowledgeRank #32 of 57Percentile 45thWeight 12%4 benchmarksReported | 64.8 | #32 of 57 | 45th | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Reported |
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 55.1 | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #9 of 36Percentile 77thWeight 12%7 benchmarksReported | 78.2 | #9 of 36 | 77th | 12% | 7 benchmarks | Reported |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench Pro | Score82.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 90.8% | Gap7.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| React Native Evals | Score78.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Composer 2 · 96.1% | Gap17.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score32.03% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00% | Gap39 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-Eval | Score57.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap23.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| DeepSearchQA | Score69.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 95.0% | Gap25.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| τ²-bench resultsτ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score95.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 · 98.9% | Gap3.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score56.87% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap16.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| ResearchClawBench | Score13.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1% | Gap7.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score77.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.5% | Gap15.4 behind | WeightWeighted 31% | Provider exact |
| ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3 | Score0.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 30.2% | Gap29.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score94.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap1.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score45.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 60.9% | Gap15.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| HealthBench Hard | Score20.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark · 42.8% | Gap22.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| MedXpertQA (Text)MedXpertQA Text | Score71.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark · 52.6% | Gap18.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score36.900% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89.000% | Gap52.1 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score16.700% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 83.000% | Gap66.3 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score83.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94% | Gap10.1 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Secondary exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score80.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap13.3 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Secondary exact |
| ERQA | Score69.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8% | Gap8.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| SimpleVQA | Score72.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7% | Gap9.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| ScreenSpot Pro | Score84.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 87.9% | Gap3.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| ZeroBench | Score29.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark · 33.0% | Gap4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
| MedXpertQA (MM)MedXpertQA Multimodal | Score81.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 80.4% | Gap0.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Secondary exact |
This chart appears only when at least two dated first-party price records exist for the exact model. It shows rate changes, not an inferred cost trend.
2 dated first-party price records. The newest record lists $12 per million tokens.
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Feb 19, 2026 · you are here
Gemini 3.1 ProScore 56.4 · $2 / $12
Base entry
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #101 of 230 on the public leaderboard with a score of 56.43/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
23 of 416 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #9, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #129. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Google · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Already tracking Gemini 3.1 Pro? See the free Radar Brief for what changes next.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #101 out of 230 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 56.43/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 23 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #32 out of 57 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 64.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #87 out of 148 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 49.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #129 out of 143 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 34/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Gemini 3.1 Pro ranks #9 out of 36 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 78.2/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
No. Gemini 3.1 Pro currently has 41 source-displayable rows across 416 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.
Related resources
Last updated September 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.