Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief

Gemini 3.1 Pro

EstablishedReleased Feb 19, 2026ProprietaryReasoning1M context

Released Feb 19, 2026 see all recent releases

Decision reading
Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 56.4 out of 100 and ranks #101 of 230. This profile shows 23 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #9. API pricing is $2 input and $12 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.2.

Data as of September 2, 2026 · How the score is built

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #9. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

23 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #129.

Decision snapshot

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

Capability shape

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

  • Agentic10th percentile
  • Coding41st percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Knowledge45th percentile
  • MathNot eligible
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Multimodal77th percentile
  • Instruction followingNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#129/143
  2. Coding#87/148
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Knowledge#32/57
  5. MathNot ranked
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Multimodal#9/36
  8. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

What it costs to get this score

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.

Explore all models

The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.

Current modelGemini 3.1 Pro · 56.4 score · $7 blended per million tokens
405060708090$0.50$1$5$10$25↘ frontierGemini 3.1 Pro

Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score

How much of this is verified

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.

  1. Agentic3/5 verified
  2. Coding2/3 verified
  3. Reasoning2/2 verified
  4. Knowledge0/4 verified
  5. Math2/2 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Multimodal0/7 verified
  8. Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
gemini-3.1-pro-previewGoogle Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
text, image, video, audio, pdfGoogle Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Gemini API · Google AI StudioGoogle Gemini model catalog
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Published at $0.20 per million cached input tokensGoogle Gemini API pricing
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #129 of 143Percentile 10thWeight 22%5 benchmarksMixed sources34.0
CodingRank #87 of 148Percentile 41stWeight 20%3 benchmarksMixed sources49.5
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified72.4
KnowledgeRank #32 of 57Percentile 45thWeight 12%4 benchmarksReported64.8
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified55.1
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MultimodalRank #9 of 36Percentile 77thWeight 12%7 benchmarksReported78.2
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured

Benchmark ledger

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.

Coding3 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
LiveCodeBench ProScore82.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 90.8%

Gap7.9 behindWeightDisplay only
React Native EvalsScore78.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Composer 2 · 96.1%

Gap17.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1Score32.03%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00%

Gap39 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic5 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Claw-EvalScore57.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4%

Gap23.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Benchmark exact
DeepSearchQAScore69.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 95.0%

Gap25.3 behindWeightDisplay only
τ²-bench resultsτ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User EvaluationScore95.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.4 · 98.9%

Gap3.3 behindWeightDisplay only
Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game BenchmarkScore56.87%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97%

Gap16.1 behindWeightDisplay only
Benchmark exact
ResearchClawBenchScore13.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1%

Gap7.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning2 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2Score77.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 92.5%

Gap15.4 behindWeightWeighted 31%
ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3Score0.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 30.2%

Gap29.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Knowledge4 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore94.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5%

Gap1.2 behindWeightDisplay only
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore45.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 60.9%

Gap15.5 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench HardScore20.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark · 42.8%

Gap22.2 behindWeightDisplay only
MedXpertQA (Text)MedXpertQA TextScore71.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark · 52.6%

Gap18.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Math2 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3Score36.900%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89.000%

Gap52.1 behindWeightWeighted 30%
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4Score16.700%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 83.000%

Gap66.3 behindWeightWeighted 10%
Multimodal7 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding ProScore83.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.4 Pro · 94%

Gap10.1 behindWeightWeighted 45%
CharXivCharXiv ReasoningScore80.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap13.3 behindWeightWeighted 25%
ERQAScore69.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8%

Gap8.4 behindWeightDisplay only
SimpleVQAScore72.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7%

Gap9.3 behindWeightDisplay only
ScreenSpot ProScore84.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 87.9%

Gap3.5 behindWeightDisplay only
ZeroBenchScore29.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark · 33.0%

Gap4 behindWeightDisplay only
MedXpertQA (MM)MedXpertQA MultimodalScore81.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 80.4%

Gap0.9 behindWeightDisplay only

Published price history

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.

08152026-042026-07Output priceInput price

2 dated first-party price records. The newest record lists $12 per million tokens.

Lineage

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.

  1. Feb 19, 2026 · you are here

    Gemini 3.1 Pro

    Score 56.4 · $2 / $12

Base entry

How to read this profile

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.

Radar

Gemini 3.1 Pro release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Already tracking Gemini 3.1 Pro? See the free Radar Brief for what changes next.

Frequently asked questions

How does Gemini 3.1 Pro perform overall in AI benchmarks?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for knowledge and understanding?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for coding and programming?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for mathematics?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for reasoning and logic?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

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.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

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.

Does Gemini 3.1 Pro have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

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.

What is the context window size of Gemini 3.1 Pro?

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.

Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro with every tracked model409 comparisons

Last updated September 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.