Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemini 3.1 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is a proprietary multimodal model from Google’s Gemini 3 series, released in early 2026 and designed for advanced reasoning across large multimodal datasets. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and documents, supporting up to a 1-million-token input context with up to 64k output tokens. Compared with Gemini 3 Pro, it improves long-context synthesis and multi-step reasoning, enabling more reliable analysis of large documents, datasets, and software codebases.
The model also advances visual understanding and grounding, allowing it to interpret UI screenshots, diagrams, and real-world scenes while referencing specific regions within images or video. These capabilities make Gemini 3.1 Pro well suited for multimodal workflows involving document processing, interface analysis, robotics research, and complex visual reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | $12.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 75.76% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | 6.13s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 6 | 11 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0024 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 44.4%(4/9) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | 89.52% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | 3.11s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 10 | 12 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0024 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | 94.9%(94/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 90%(9/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 86.7%(26/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | 81.7%(49/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology