Skip to main content

Gemini Pro model by Google

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

A preview Gemini Pro release for advanced reasoning and multimodal work.

Official page

Where it sits in Google's lineup

  1. Gemini ProGoogle's Gemini family for complex reasoning and multimodal work.You are on Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Current:Gemini 4 Argon
  2. Gemini FlashGoogle's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.Gemini 3.8 Flash
  3. GemmaGoogle's open-weight Gemma models, built from the technology behind Gemini.Gemma 4 31B
Stack role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
Offered in
4 products
Made by
Google
Family
Gemini Pro, version 3.1 Preview
Released
Feb 19, 2026 Current
In its family
Release 1 of 2 in Gemini Pro. The newest is Gemini 4 Argon.

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.

Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGoogleThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 5th of 30 on Factuality, 6th of 24 on Science and 11th of 37 on Code. It ranks lowest on Agentic coding, 31st of 31 and Tool use, 33rd of 38. Computer use: not yet published by Google or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero.

On the chart

  • Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewThis pageResults on 11 of 12 axes$2 / $12For prompts under 200K tokens; $4 / $18 at 200K or more, as the maker lists it.145 tokens/sFirst token in 17 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on each axis11 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$1.44per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted.

Speed

141tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts.

First token
22 s
Whole answer
26 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
66K
Reads
Text, Images, Speech, Video

Quality

29.7of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations.

GDPval knowledge work
791 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
4.0%
Epoch Capabilities Index
155

Hallucination

50.9%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better.

Knowledge accuracy
54.9%

Where you can get it

8of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
No
Licence
Gemini API Additional Terms of Service
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, Epoch AI, GILD's route matrix and Google, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Cached input.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewRunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness. Vals.ai tested the February 2026 preview build.2.5%Unusual next to its other results. Vals.ai tested the February 2026 preview build. Vals.ai run of Oct 24, 2026.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (02/26)Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run58.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run59.6%Effort: default. Harness: none.Epoch AIJun 11, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run94.4%Effort: high. Harness: none.Epoch AIAug 6, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools47%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run35.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 releaseNot yet published by Google or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested the February 19, 2026 preview build.82%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run54.9%Hallucination rate 50.9% in the same run (lower is better)Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewEffort: default. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 30.9% of requests denied and 8.8% evaded.59.9%0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: reasoning on. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run. On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 8th. Scale does not say which reasoning setting it tested.71.4%Plus or minus 1.74 points (95% interval)Effort: not published. Harness: none.Scale AI SEALOct 28, 2026

Price and speed

  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 per million input tokens and $12 per million output tokens. For prompts under 200K tokens; $4 / $18 at 200K or more, as the maker lists it. Google pricing, Oct 27, 2026.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview writes 144.6 output tokens per second on Google's API, and its first token arrives 17 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  11. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  5. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  41. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  23. Claude Sonnet 582%
  24. GPT-5.482%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  33. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Claude Opus 579.3%
  39. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  30. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Every measure on record

Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.

Every measure on record for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewRunSourceRead
Specs and access
Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that.1MArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.66Kno Google figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 65,536OpenRouterOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.Text, Images, Speech, VideoArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under.Gemini API Additional Terms of ServiceGoogleNov 1, 2026
Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run.NoArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included.8 of 19GILD route matrixOct 28, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.5,623Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.13Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.06Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.22Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.22Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.15Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$1.44Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000.$2,072Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.18,112Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.12,490Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Speed
End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt.67 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.26 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt.64 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.22 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long.161 tokens/sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.141 tokens/sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s.127 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size.64 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking.22 sGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reliability
Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline.50.9%Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.54.9%Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.31.9Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience.73.5%High effortEpoch AIAug 10, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.456Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.41.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (AA run)AA's run of APEX-Agents professional tasks.32.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.35.1%Mercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.17.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.791Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.11.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it.$911.21Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.82%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,161Sakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.77.1%ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.51%High effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it.11.7%Datacurve (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.95.5%High effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents.42.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval.155Gemini 3.1 ProEpoch AIOct 26, 2026
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run.26.8%Epoch AIJun 11, 2026
FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.59.6%Epoch AIJun 11, 2026
GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run.94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.94.4%High effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.47.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run.77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.29.7Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
IT-Bench SRE (AA run)AA's IT-Bench SRE score for incident and reliability agents.30.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn.53.8High effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
METR time horizonMETR 50% time horizon in minutes of human work, with METR's interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.6.4 hMETR (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run.82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.34%High effortEpoch AIJul 27, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.95.6%High effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.26%Vals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.58.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score.21.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score.95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.4.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,447LMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.44.4Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.33Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.33.5Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.29.8Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.43.7Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.30Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Harvey Legal Lab (AA run)AA's run of Harvey's legal task lab.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

8 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
AntigravityAvailablenot statedcatalog names Gemini 3.1 ProAntigravity: Enterprise onlyGoogle
CursorAvailablenot statedcatalog names Gemini 3.1 Prolisted as Gemini 3.1 ProAnysphere (Cursor)Cursor, Cursor Docs — Agent, Rules, MCP, Skills & CLICursor, Models & Pricing
DatabricksPreviewDatabricks lists Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (endpoint system.ai.gemini-3-1-pro)Databricks
The maker's own APIPreviewgemini-3.1-pro-previewpublic preview; 1,048,576 input / 65,536 outputGoogle AI for Developers, Gemini 3.1 Pro previewGoogle AI for Developers, Gemini API deprecations
GitHub CopilotRetirednot statedretired picker label Gemini 3.1 Proretired 2026-09-01GitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Previewgemini-3.1-pro-previewpublic preview; global endpoint only; 1,048,576 / 65,536; customtools endpoint has no Provisioned ThroughputGoogle Cloud, Gemini 3.1 Pro
OpenCodeAvailablegemini-3.1-proOpenCode Zen, Google endpointAnomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterPreviewgoogle/gemini-3.1-pro-previewOpenRouter's models API, read Oct 28, 2026, lists google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview as Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, with a 1,048,576-token context and 65,536 max output tokens. Google's Gemini API pricing page, read Oct 29, 2026, names the model Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (gemini-3.1-pro-preview).OpenRouterGoogle
Windsurf / DevinAvailableDevin Desktop's model list, read Oct 28, 2026, offers Gemini 3.1 Pro High Thinking (credit multiplier 2) and Gemini 3.1 Pro Low Thinking (credit multiplier 1), each at US$2 input and US$12 output per million tokens, and US$4 input and US$18 output above 200K tokens.Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI Models

Not offered on 2 routes: Amazon Bedrock and Microsoft Foundry.

7 routes do not say: Claude Code, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, Codex, Gemini CLI, Grok Build and Snowflake Cortex.

What each of these 9 routes' pages say, with sources
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockNot offeredBedrock's Google row lists Gemma models onlyAmazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Supported foundation models in Amazon Bedrock
Microsoft FoundryNot offeredFoundry names no Google modelMicrosoft Learn, Foundry Models sold by Azure
Claude CodeNot statedClaude Code's model configuration page, read Oct 28 and Oct 29, 2026, does not name this model. It takes a full model name on the Anthropic API, an inference profile ARN on Amazon Bedrock and a deployment name on Microsoft Foundry.Anthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Not statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Claude Platform on AWSNot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
CodexNot statedCodex docs list OpenAI models only
Gemini CLINot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Grok BuildNot statedGrok Build pages name only grok-4.7xAI (SpaceXSI)
Snowflake CortexNot statednot statedcatalog names gemini-3.1-proSnowflake's Cortex AISQL regional availability page, read Oct 29, 2026, lists gemini-3.1-pro (Public Preview), with up to 64,000 output tokens and cross-region inference required. The page does not list the ID gemini-3.1-pro-preview.Snowflake

Prices by route

The lowest standard rate is Gemini API, at $2 / $12 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
Gemini APIMakerLowest$2 / $12Long context $4 / $18, prompts over 200K tokensGoogle, Oct 27, 2026Google, Oct 30, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$2 / $12$0.2Blended $4.50, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $1.74, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputArtificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026
OpenRouterprompts under 200K tokens$2 / $12$0.2Cache read $0.4, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache write $0.38, 5-minute cacheLong context $4 / $18, prompts of 200K tokens or moreOpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Through OpenRouter, 6 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Google (global)prompts under 200K tokens$2 / $12$0.2Cache read $0.4, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache write $0.38, 5-minute cacheLong context $4 / $18, prompts of 200K tokens or moreUp 99.7% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studioprompts under 200K tokens$2 / $12$0.2Cache read $0.4, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache write $0.38, 5-minute cacheLong context $4 / $18, prompts of 200K tokens or moreUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google (global, flex)Cache read $0.2, flex tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache read $0.1, flex tier, prompts under 200K tokensCache write $0.19, flex tier, 5-minute cacheFlex $1 / $6, flex tier, prompts under 200K tokensLong context $2 / $9, flex tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreUp 4% / 0%1.05M context, 66K output
Google (global, priority)Cache read $0.72, priority tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache read $0.36, priority tier, prompts under 200K tokensCache write $0.68, priority tier, 5-minute cacheLong context $7.20 / $32.40, priority tier, prompts of 200K tokens or morePriority $3.60 / $21.60, priority tier, prompts under 200K tokensUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studio (flex)Cache read $0.2, flex tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache read $0.1, flex tier, prompts under 200K tokensCache write $0.19, flex tier, 5-minute cacheFlex $1 / $6, flex tier, prompts under 200K tokensLong context $2 / $9, flex tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 66K output
Google AI Studio (priority)Cache read $0.72, priority tier, prompts of 200K tokens or moreCache read $0.36, priority tier, prompts under 200K tokensCache write $0.68, priority tier, 5-minute cacheLong context $7.20 / $32.40, priority tier, prompts of 200K tokens or morePriority $3.60 / $21.60, priority tier, prompts under 200K tokensUp 100%1.05M context, 66K output

Uptime and speed by endpoint

Each provider endpoint as its monitor reports it: uptime over the last day and the last 30 minutes, output speed and time to first token, and the limits it serves. A blank is a figure the monitor does not publish for that endpoint.

EndpointUptime, 1 dayUptime, 30 minOutput speedFirst tokenContext / max outputSource
Artificial Analysis: Google (AI Studio)145 tokens/s17 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis: Google (Vertex)99 tokens/s25 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026

Lineup

Google's 5 releases in 3 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is lit.

CurrentLegacyThis model

Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 31, 2026.

  1. Gemini Pro

    Google's Gemini family for complex reasoning and multimodal work.

    2 releases

    1. This page3.1 PreviewCurrent. In 4 products we coverPrice$2 / $12Speed144.6 tok/s
    2. 4Current. In 7 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed82 tok/s

  2. Gemini Flash

    Google's Gemini family balancing capability, speed, and cost.

    2 releases

    1. 3.6Legacy. In 2 products we coverPrice$0.75 / $3.75Speed190.6 tok/s
    2. 3.8Current. In 6 products we coverPrice$0.75 / $3.75Speed132.6 tok/s

  3. Gemma

    Google's open-weight Gemma models, built from the technology behind Gemini.

    1 release

    1. 4 31BCurrent. In 1 product we coverPrice$0.14 / $0.40, on Amazon BedrockSpeed35.5 tok/s

Where it fits

The layers of Agentic Software Development that Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview can power. A product supplies the rest.

Product & Engineering, Software Development

Agentic Software Development

Primary role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.

  1. Work planning & task decomposition

    The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  2. Codebase context & intelligence

    The provider documents long-context or codebase-oriented reasoning suitable for this layer. Google's page

    Strong fit

  3. Coding & implementation

    The provider documents this Model for software-engineering and coding work. Google's page

    Strong fit

  4. Debugging & investigation

    The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  5. Testing & verification

    The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  6. Code review & quality

    The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

Products

We cover 4 products that offer Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.

Through a subscription

  1. OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.AI Coding AgentSupported
  2. Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.AI Coding AgentSupported
  3. Google Antigravity−16 MixedGoogle's agent platform for software work: a desktop manager, a CLI, an IDE, and editor extensions.EnterprisePlans that include it

Through an API

  1. Gemini API0 MixedDeveloper access to Gemini models through Google's API and SDKs.AI Model APISupported

Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Google (Oct 28, 2026).

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured output54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long context44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 101 accounts behind Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, the Google AI Developers Forum and the web for accounts that name Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.

Quality and reasoning 56%

  • Favorable
    above average in intelligence

    Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (High).

  • Favorable
    nailed all my tasks so far

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". sergiotapia, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in OpenCode through OpenCode Zen.

  • Favorable
    Pretty great pelican:

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". Simon Willison, creator of Datasette and the LLM command-line tool, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro, pelican SVG test on launch day.

  • Favorable
    Unsurprisingly 3.1 performs a bit better

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". ponyous, Hacker News commenter running 3D modeling benchmarks, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3 on 3D modeling benchmarks.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 is surprisingly bad at coding

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". ckdot, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Antigravity.

  • Favorable
    I then asked Gemini 3.1 Pro via the API and it returned a response similar to Claude and GPT-5.2 -- carefully considering all factors

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". dudeinhawaii, Hacker News commenter on a Google AI Ultra plan, self-described, Feb 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in the Gemini app, Gemini CLI and the API.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini tends to take shortcuts when the task has more than ~5 constraints

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". MATTEHWHOU, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a real codebase migration.

  • Favorable
    but it only one that got animated movement

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". SXX, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3.5 Flash on an animated SVG prompt.

  • Unfavorable
    It is literally lazy and so many times does half work

    HN comment on "Accelerating Gemma 4: faster inference with multi-token prediction drafters". kingleopold, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 5, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro through the Gemini CLI.

  • Favorable
    making mistakes Pro doesn't make

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". pqdbr, Hacker News commenter testing production use cases, self-described, May 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3.5 Flash in production use cases.

  • Favorable
    When I need accuracy I switch to Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". dzhiurgis, Hacker News commenter using JetBrains Junie, self-described, May 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in JetBrains Junie.

  • Unfavorable
    while it's coding performance is mediocre

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.6 Flash". glimshe, Hacker News commenter on a Pro subscription, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a Google Pro subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro is scoring worse than some mid-sized Chinese models

    HN comment on "Improving GPT‑5.6 Sol in ChatGPT, expanding GPT‑5.6 Luna access for free users". ekidd, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 7, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on task benchmarks.

  • Unfavorable
    3.1 pro feels a year behind and is extremely lazy

    HN comment on "Muse Spark 1.1". revolvingthrow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a recent test drive.

  • Unfavorable
    3.1 pro is just fundamentally not on the same level

    HN comment on "Our eighth generation TPUs: two chips for the agentic era". virgildotcodes, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 22, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Antigravity for code review.

  • Favorable
    3.1 also writes better prose for technical material than Flash 3.7

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". exacube, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3.7 Flash on complex system prompts.

  • Favorable
    Its easily the best model I have tried. And yes I am talking about 3.1 pro

    HN comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". landdate, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro for troubleshooting logic and finding bugs.

  • Favorable
    on creativity at least visually, Gemini 3.1 pro is somehow still up there

    HN comment on "Kimi K3, and what we can still learn from the pelican benchmark". mesmertech, Hacker News commenter who runs a video generation benchmark, self-described, Jul 17, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on visual creativity tasks.

  • Favorable
    I've noticed a big jump when they switched to Gemini 3.1 Pro and it really became useful

    HN comment on "Ask HN: What are you working on? (May 2026)". simonpure, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 11, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Google Jules.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.1 pro seems quite capable

    HN comment on "Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters". UncleOxidant, Hacker News commenter doing FPGA work, self-described, Mar 13, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a Verilog and FPGA board task.

  • Unfavorable
    It does hallucinate a lot though

    HN comment on "Our eighth generation TPUs: two chips for the agentic era". blueblisters, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 23, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3 in multi-turn conversations (the comment says "3/3.1 Pro").

  • Favorable
    I switch back to 3.1 pro and it works fine

    HN comment on "Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent". Rodmine, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in the Gemini app.

  • Unfavorable
    it didn't feel like a leap in raw intelligence

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". ismailmaj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on launch day, commenting in the HN launch thread.

  • Favorable
    inferior on both quality and cost to GLM 5.1, GLM 5.2, Gemini 3.1 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro

    HN comment on "Claude Sonnet 5". artursapek, Hacker News commenter who runs the revise.io errata-bench proofreading benchmark, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on his proofreading benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    it only implemented a quarter of the plan before stopping

    HN comment on "GLM-5.1: Towards Long-Horizon Tasks". dahrkael, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 8, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro implementing a seven-phase plan.

  • Favorable
    3.1 Pro is the first model to correctly count the number of legs

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". WarmWash, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on an image counting test.

  • Favorable
    3.1 Pro did a decent job this time

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". pRusya, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in gemini.google.com on an AI Pro subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    Seems like 3.1 pro reasoned about the correct answer, but chose to go with a different (wrong) one

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". XCSme, Hacker News commenter who runs aibenchy.com, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on his aibenchy tests.

  • Unfavorable
    It generated a plausible list of links -- but they were all hallucinated

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". brooksc, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro asked to find LinkedIn URLs.

  • Unfavorable
    a loop of writing "Bye! Done!" repeatedly until manually stopped

    HN comment on "Remove pgrust: the entry is cheating (per-query kernels and result caching)". gpm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on an ordinary prompt.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro and 3.5 Flash struggle

    HN comment on "Schema Harness Achieves ~99% on Arc‑AGI‑3 Public". stared, Hacker News commenter sharing Quesma benchmarks, self-described, Jul 16, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on the Baba Is You puzzle test.

  • Favorable
    TLDR - if guided well gemini is amazing at coding

    X post: tested Gemini 3.1 on a real codebase. Ra1kshit, X user building chessiro.com, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro (the post says "gemini 3.1") on a real codebase, launch day.

  • Favorable
    it stayed near the top for a very long time

    X post: Gemini 3.1 Pro is the odd one out. Henk Poley, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro for agentic coding and on LM Arena.

  • Favorable
    made Gemini 3.1 Pro really good at coding a few months ago

    X post: Cursor made Gemini 3.1 Pro good at coding. protomachine, self-described software engineer on X, Oct 25, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Cursor.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro just broke my code

    X post: Gemini 3.1 Pro over capacity. Theo Browne, CEO of T3 per his X bio, self-described, Feb 23, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a $250 a month plan.

  • Unfavorable
    Failed every coding task I gave it (Opus 4.6 passed)

    X post: Gemini 3.1 Pro is completely unusable. Zack Korman, cofounder of Embroidery per his X bio, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on coding tasks against Opus 4.6.

  • Favorable
    Detect backdoors in compiled binaries 1 gemini-3.1-pro-preview 49%

    Quesma BinaryAudit: AI backdoor detection benchmark. Quesma, independent benchmark publisher (BinaryAudit), self-described, Mar 7, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on BinaryAudit with Ghidra and Radare2.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro high diagnosed and solved 3 complex issues today that Opus Max was stumbling on

    HN comment on "Claude Fable 5". testfrequency, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro high on debugging in a codebase.

Tool use and structured output 54%

Long context 44%

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro's long context is genuinely better now

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". MATTEHWHOU, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a real codebase migration.

  • Favorable
    You can put whole 50,000 - 70,000 LOC codebase into Gemini 3.1 Pro context making it 800,000+ tokens

    HN comment on "Our eighth generation TPUs: two chips for the agentic era". SXX, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 22, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro with whole codebases of 800,000+ tokens in context.

  • Favorable
    Sometimes it's been working on a task for 4h

    HN comment on "Agents that run while I sleep". simonpure, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 11, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Google Jules.

  • Unfavorable
    is the most affected by context rot in multi-turn conversations

    HN comment on "Our eighth generation TPUs: two chips for the agentic era". blueblisters, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 23, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3 in multi-turn conversations (the comment says "3/3.1 Pro").

  • Favorable
    from 3.1 pro on I've removed many of them and haven't spotted problems

    HN comment on "GPT 5.6 Sol is the best "vision" model OpenAI ever released". gdudeman, Hacker News commenter processing messy PDFs, self-described, Aug 17, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on complicated, messy PDFs.

  • Unfavorable
    The model starts making lots more errors already past 200k tokens

    Forum: Gemini 3.1 Pro context window not realistic. BReal, Google AI Developers Forum user coding with long contexts, self-described, Apr 13, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview for coding with growing contexts, thinking level high.

  • Unfavorable
    I cannot do any long or complex tasks with Pro due to the contextual breakdown

    Forum reply: Gemini 3.1 Pro stuck in a Done loop. M_B1, Google AI Developers Forum user, self-described, Mar 25, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro ("Pro" in a thread on Gemini 3.1 Pro) in Antigravity and the API.

  • Unfavorable
    It correctly processed the Turn 1 PDF but fails on Turn 2 onward

    Forum: Gemini 3.1 Pro does not process PDFs after the first turn. Omarty, Google AI Developers Forum user running a multi-PDF Gem pipeline, self-described, Feb 23, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in Gems with a three-turn, three-PDF pipeline.

  • Unfavorable
    First the Gemini 3.1 Pro preview stopped seeing content

    Forum: Gemini cannot see the contents of long single-page PDFs. Marmenuar, Google AI Developers Forum user, self-described, Apr 24, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on long single-page text PDFs.

  • Unfavorable
    3.1 is a liability for multi-file work

    Forum: on a coding hiatus with Gemini 3.1. BreakingCircuts, self-described security researcher and architect on the Google AI Developers Forum, Mar 17, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro (the post says Gemini 3.1) for complex repo management.

  • Unfavorable
    If have .agent directories, rules and workflows, GEMINI.md, etc, but it continues to forget things

    Forum: Gemini Pro 3.1 forgets a lot. Jonathan_Greenberg, Google AI Developers Forum user, self-described, Mar 16, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro ("Gemini Pro 3.1") as an Antigravity agent on long coding jobs.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.x sometimes skips notes and jumps ahead unpredictably

    Forum: Gemini 3.1 vs 2.5 Pro, long-document coverage. Adam_Witt, Google AI Developers Forum user running financial analysis on the Gemini API, self-described, Mar 15, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro (the thread compares Gemini 3.1 with 2.5 Pro) on full 10-K financial-notes sections through the Gemini API.

  • Unfavorable
    it was not able to reliably maintain and manage the long-term study plan on its own

    Forum: Gemini app long-conversation task continuity issue. qynily, student posting on the Google AI Developers Forum, self-described, Aug 4, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in the Gemini app over a 17-day study conversation.

  • Favorable
    it seems to me that 3.1 Pro handles large PDFs a little better than 2.5 Pro

    Forum reply: Gemini 2.5 Pro option disappeared from AI Studio. Gladiator7G, Google AI Developers Forum user, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in AI Studio on large PDFs.

  • Favorable
    pretty good at understanding a code base more than Claude

    HN comment on "Claude Fable 5". testfrequency, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro high on debugging in a codebase.

  • Favorable
    Unlike the old gemini you can actually use it in a large codebase

    X post: a night with Gemini 3.1 Pro on a large mono repo. Ra1kshit, X user building chessiro.com, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in OpenCode on a large production mono repo, overnight session.

  • Unfavorable
    frontier models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 4.6 Opus, and GPT 5.4) losing on average 25% of document content over 20 delegated interactions

    LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate (DELEGATE-52). Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel and Jennifer Neville, authors of the DELEGATE-52 paper on arXiv, self-described, Apr 17, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on DELEGATE-52 long delegated document-editing workflows.

Developer experience 40%

  • Favorable
    it generated 67M tokens, which is fairly concise in comparison to the median of 87M

    Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (High).

  • Favorable
    You can use the model through OpenCode Zen right away and avoid that Google UI craziness

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". sergiotapia, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in OpenCode through OpenCode Zen.

  • Unfavorable
    safety seems overtuned at the moment

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". LZ_Khan, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on launch day, commenting in the HN launch thread.

  • Favorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro supports "medium" thinking where Gemini 3 did not

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro through the Gemini API.

  • Unfavorable
    The outcome was terrible: AGENTS.md ignored

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". ckdot, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Antigravity.

  • Unfavorable
    It needs a lot of guiding, it tends to be lazy and poorly sticking to instructions by default

    HN comment on "Gemini API File Search is now multimodal". comboy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 10, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro through the API.

  • Unfavorable
    I just have to explain my reasoning so damn much

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.6 Flash". Tostino, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro, used almost since release.

  • Favorable
    3.1 Pro still has better system-instruction following than Flash 3.7

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber". exacube, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3.7 Flash on complex system prompts.

  • Favorable
    will follow my pre built instructions to never output anything unless it can be directly sourced, pretty well

    HN comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". landdate, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro for troubleshooting logic and finding bugs.

  • Favorable
    It works perfect either via api or Aistudio

    HN comment on "Claude Opus 4.7". algoth1, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 17, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro via the API and AI Studio with a detailed system prompt.

  • Unfavorable
    Writing style wise, 3.1 seems very verbose

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". atleastoptimal, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on launch day, commenting in the HN launch thread.

  • Unfavorable
    still no minimal reasoning in G3.1P

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". jbellis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on launch day, commenting in the HN launch thread.

  • Unfavorable
    it keeps repeating the same phrase "Gemini 3.1 Pro is not available on this version. Please upgrade to the latest version."

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". rahulroy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Antigravity on launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    just assume so much without making a quick check in

    HN comment on "Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?". byra, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 15, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro among recent models for coding.

  • Unfavorable
    It took months for 3.1 Pro to become available in an enterprise account

    HN comment on "Gemini 4 Argon". yearolinuxdsktp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in an enterprise account.

  • Favorable
    That it sounds much more human than other LLMs

    HN comment on "How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing". postalcoder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 14, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in chat.

  • Favorable
    which has a much more normal "voice"

    HN comment on "Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1". fschuett, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro for comment cleanup after Claude.

  • Favorable
    3) followed instructions

    X post: tested Gemini 3.1 on a real codebase. Ra1kshit, X user building chessiro.com, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro (the post says "gemini 3.1") on a real codebase, launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    where is gemini-3.1-pro-high that I actually want to use?

    X post: Ultra plan, first message, error 429. tomhacks, X user on a Gemini AI Ultra plan, self-described, Apr 10, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in Gemini CLI and Antigravity on AI Ultra.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro is unavailable or not selectable in the Gemini CLI for Google AI Pro subscribers

    gemini-cli #20128: Gemini 3.1 Pro not available. heckcoder, GitHub user filing an issue on google-gemini/gemini-cli, self-described, Feb 24, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Gemini CLI on Google AI Pro.

  • Unfavorable
    the Gemini 3.1 model is not available for selection in the model list

    gemini-cli #25004: cannot select Gemini 3.1 Pro. adhieprastiyo, GitHub user filing an issue on google-gemini/gemini-cli, self-described, Apr 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in Gemini CLI 0.37.0 on Google AI Plus.

Cost 50%

  • Unfavorable
    somewhat expensive when comparing to other models of similar price

    Artificial Analysis - Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (High).

  • Unfavorable
    So relatively small task, hitting an API, using one of my skills, but a quarter. Pricey!

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". sergiotapia, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in OpenCode through OpenCode Zen.

  • Favorable
    That's less than half the price of Claude Opus 4.6 with very similar benchmark scores to that model

    Simon Willison: Gemini 3.1 Pro. Simon Willison, creator of Datasette and the LLM command-line tool, on his blog, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in Google AI Studio and through the API via his llm-gemini plugin.

  • Unfavorable
    their "cost per task" also increased by 4.2x

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". culi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on the ARC-AGI-2 leaderboard.

  • Favorable
    If Gemini 3.1 Pro does indeed have similar performance, the price difference is notable

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro through the Gemini API.

  • Unfavorable
    surprisingly it costs 2.6x as much

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". ponyous, Hacker News commenter running 3D modeling benchmarks, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3 on 3D modeling benchmarks.

  • Favorable
    In my opinion, it's is better/cheaper/faster

    HN comment on "Ask HN: Which LLM are you using to evaluate your ideas?". thisisauserid, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 10, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro for evaluating ideas.

  • Favorable
    also more expensive than Gemini 3.1 Pro

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". pqdbr, Hacker News commenter testing production use cases, self-described, May 19, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro against Gemini 3.5 Flash in production use cases.

  • Unfavorable
    it burns thru credits leaving me topping up $5 every day

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.5 Flash". dzhiurgis, Hacker News commenter using JetBrains Junie, self-described, May 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in JetBrains Junie.

  • Favorable
    Using gemini 3.1 pro was not the spendthrift choice here

    HN comment on "AI agent bankrupted their operator while trying to scan DN42". blfr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 12, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro driving an agent with terminal access.

  • Favorable
    Considering that I'm a Pro subscriber, it's quite cost effective

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.6 Flash". glimshe, Hacker News commenter on a Pro subscription, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on a Google Pro subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    Gemini 3.1 Pro is scoring worse than some mid-sized Chinese models at 1/20th the cost

    HN comment on "Improving GPT‑5.6 Sol in ChatGPT, expanding GPT‑5.6 Luna access for free users". ekidd, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 7, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on task benchmarks.

  • Favorable
    API is at competitive price vs e.g. Anthropic

    HN comment on "Gemini API File Search is now multimodal". comboy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 10, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro through the API.

  • Unfavorable
    But it's not just Anthropic. I had the same issue with Gemini 3.1 Pro.

    HN comment on "Claude Code bug can silently 10-20x API costs". fxtentacle, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 31, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro in a coding loop.

  • Favorable
    inferior on both quality and cost to GLM 5.1, GLM 5.2, Gemini 3.1 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro

    HN comment on "Claude Sonnet 5". artursapek, Hacker News commenter who runs the revise.io errata-bench proofreading benchmark, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on his proofreading benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    the absurd amount of quota they take to do even simple tasks

    HN comment on "Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?". byra, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 15, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro among recent models for coding.

  • Unfavorable
    while also being 3x cheaper

    HN comment on "Gemini 3.1 Pro". XCSme, Hacker News commenter who runs aibenchy.com, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro on his aibenchy tests.

Speed 35%

Reliability 14%