Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Head-to-head evidence from 28 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 Terra #11 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.6 Terra share 28 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 16 to GPT-5.6 Terra.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 28
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 19
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 28 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 Terra is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.57 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 Terra's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 80.8 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 16.700% to 68.300%. Gemini 3.1 Pro does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.6 Terra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. GPT-5.6 Terra 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 Terra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 49.0 | GPT-5.6 Terra80.8 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 1.9 | GPT-5.6 Terra80.7 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra87.4 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra63.4 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 TerraNot measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.6 Terra92.9 |
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 68.300%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 51.6FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%; GPT-5.6 Terra scored 68.300%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 36.900%B 84.900%Winner: GPT-5.6 TerraΔ 48FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; GPT-5.6 Terra scored 84.900%. GPT-5.6 Terra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 80.7%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 3.2MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; GPT-5.6 Terra scored 80.7%. 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 Terra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | GPT-5.6 Terra$2.5 input / $15 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | GPT-5.6 TerraNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | GPT-5.6 Terra1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 86.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 47.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | 38.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | 54.1% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | 1581 | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | 45.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | 85.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | 51.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | 31.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | 57.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | 88% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 23.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 53.1% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | 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% | 76.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 53.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 63.4% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 69.6% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 55.8% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 64.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 92.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | 32.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 55.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 92.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 41.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | -0.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 45.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 85.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.6 Terra wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 80.7% | 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% | 80.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 82% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | GPT-5.6 Terra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 77.1% | 71.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.57 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 16.700% and 68.300%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 80.8 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 Terra?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 80.7. Inside this category, 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.