GoogleGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteVSGoogleGemma 4 31B
Our Take
We recommend Gemma 4 31B over Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite because it holds a clear reasoning lead. Choose Gemma 4 31B for offline data control and scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions, or Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only if you prefer using a cloud-hosted API setup for scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 82.2% (+2.1% gap).
Coding Performance: Both models were evaluated on the LiveCodeBench benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scored 72%, while Gemma 4 31B scored 80% (+-8.0% gap).
Hosting Model: Gemma 4 31B runs locally for $0 API costs, while Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is hosted via a cloud-hosted API setup.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
72%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
82.2%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.56Input: $0.25 | Output: $1.50Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)Winner (+8.0%)
80%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+2.1%)
84.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 31B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 80% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions) compared to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite which scores 72%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 31B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.