Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.8 Flash scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.8 Flash leads 81.2% to 72.2%.
Overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro averages 76.8% (#13 of 63) against 79.8% (#7 of 63) for Gemini 3.8 Flash.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0045 vs $0.010 per sample), while Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster (8.4s vs 12.8s per sample).
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.825 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $4.13 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 76.8% | 79.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0045 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.44s | 12.76s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 67.4% | 68.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.3 to 69.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 74.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.4 to 75.6 |
| Counting (low) | 71.6% | 78.8% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.3% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 |
| Identification (high) | – | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 72.6% | 72.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 73.1% | 78.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.2% | 81.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash: Overview
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 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.
On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.8 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 79.8% (#7 of 63) against 76.8% (#13 of 63) for Gemini 3.1 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads with 81.2% against 72.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0045 per sample against $0.010. Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.83 per 1M input tokens and $4.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.4s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.