Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.6 Sol share 27 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 19 to GPT-5.6 Sol.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 20
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 87.5 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 16.700% to 83.000%.
GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5.6 Sol 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.
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 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Δ | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 55.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol87.5 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin→ 0.4 | GPT-5.6 Sol83.0 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Sol92.0 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Sol64.6 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 SolNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Sol94.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 16.700%B 83.000%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 66.3FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 36.900%B 89.000%Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 52.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 83%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 0.9MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | GPT-5.6 SolNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | GPT-5.6 Sol1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 85.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 54.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | 61.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | 1736 | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | 51.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | 87.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | 56.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | 33.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | 65.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | 88% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 91.9% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 92.2% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 84.5% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1501 | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | 77.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 56.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 64.6% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 91.9% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 94.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | 33.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 58.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 94.1% | Tie |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 47.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | 21.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 58.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 88.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GPQASource | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 60.5% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGPT-5.6 Sol wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 83% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | 83.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Sol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 72.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 16.700% and 83.000%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 82.6. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.