Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Command A+ vs Gemini 3.1 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.51/100
Margin
7.8pts
winning →
55.3/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Command A+ #135 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Command A+ and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Command A+; 28 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
19
Command A+ only
2
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
28
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemini 3.1 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.3 to 47.51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 3.1 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 82.6 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 80.2%.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Command A+. Command A+ is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3.1 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Command A+.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Command A+ and Gemini 3.1 Pro
CategoryCommand A+ΔGemini 3.1 Pro
MultimodalCommand A+59.3Margin→ 23.3Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6
ReasoningCommand A+Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro77.1
MathCommand A+Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.1 Pro31.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Command A+B · Gemini 3.1 Pro

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 52.7%B 80.2%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 27.5
    CharXiv: Command A+ scored 52.7%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 63%B 83.9%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 20.9
    MMMU-Pro: Command A+ scored 63%; Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensCommand A+$2.5 input / $10 outputGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputCommand A+ has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondCommand A+272 tok/sGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sCommand A+ has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenCommand A+0.25 sGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sCommand A+ reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensCommand A+128KGemini 3.1 Pro1MGemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 80.7%95.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 9.2%21.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 10.7%23.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 714965Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
terminalBenchHardSource 25%53.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Claw-EvalSource —57.8%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —69.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —56.87%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —13.3%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —37.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —42.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —58.9%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —30.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —73.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Coding IndexSource 27.9%68.8%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 37.8%58.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
LiveCodeBench ProSource —82.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —78.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —32.03%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 46.0%72.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 0.3%17.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —77.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 22.5%46.5%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 76.1%94.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 11.4%44.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -4.0%32.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 8.9%55.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 14.1%49.9%Command A+ leads
AA Openness IndexSource 38.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —94.3%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —45.4%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —20.6%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —71.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —36.900%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —16.700%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource —93.2%Not comparable
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
MMMUSource 75.1%—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 63%83.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CharXivSource 52.7%80.2%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 63.2%82.4%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ERQASource —69.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —72.4%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —84.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource —29.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —81.3%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1281Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkCommand A+Gemini 3.1 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.9%77.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Command A+ or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.3 to 47.51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 80.2%.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Command A+ or Gemini 3.1 Pro?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 59.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Cohere Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.