GoogleGemini 3.1 ProVSOpenAIGPT-5.5
Our Take
We recommend GPT-5.5 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 2.5x cheaper Gemini 3.1 Pro to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, GPT-5.5 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose GPT-5.5 for complex development tasks, or Gemini 3.1 Pro for cost optimization.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 54.2%, while GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 94.3%, while GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 3.1 Pro pricing ($2/M input, $12/M output) is 2.5x cheaper than GPT-5.5 ($5/M input, $30/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
54.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.7%)
94.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)2.5x cheaper
$4.50Input: $2.00 | Output: $12.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+4.4%)
58.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$11.25Input: $5.00 | Output: $30.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper than GPT-5.5. Gemini 3.1 Pro has a blended cost of $4.50/1M tokens, which is about 2.5x cheaper than GPT-5.5 at $11.25/1M tokens.
GPT-5.5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 58.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro which scores 54.2%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5.
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.