GoogleGemini 3.1 ProVSGoogleGemini 3.6 Flash

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

Both models perform almost identically, with an average score gap of just 2.9%. We recommend choosing Gemini 3.6 Flash as it is the more cost-effective option (being 1.5x cheaper) without sacrificing any real-world capability.

Was this recommendation helpful?

Model Specs

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)

54.2%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.3%)

94.3%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)

$4.50Input: $2.00 | Output: $12.00

Context Window

1.05M tokens

Model Specs

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Website

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+4.5%)

58.7%

excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases

Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)

93%

graduate-level science QA

Cost & Context

Cost (per 1M tokens)1.5x cheaper

$3.00Input: $1.50 | Output: $7.50

Context Window

1.05M tokens

Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro. Gemini 3.6 Flash has a blended cost of $3.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.5x cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro at $4.50/1M tokens.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 58.7% on swe-bench-pro (excellent at multi-file repositories, autonomous agents, and industrial codebases) compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro which scores 54.2%.

Related Matchups

Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.6 Flash.

Browse More Comparisons

GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro

OpenAIGPT-5.5

Compare Specs

GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash

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.

Open Model Finder