Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 26 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); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.6 Plus share 26 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 34 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 26
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 21
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 34
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 60.5 against 31.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 36.900% to 26.207%. Gemini 3.1 Pro does hit back in reasoning, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 28.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | Margin← 15.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | Margin← 2.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 36.900%B 26.207%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 10.7FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 16.700%B 8.333%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 8.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 83.9%B 78.8%Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 5.1MMMU-Pro: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 83.9%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 80.2%B 81.5%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 1.3CharXiv: Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 80.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 81.5%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 58.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 27.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | 31.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | 1135 | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | 50.60% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | 18.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| 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 |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | 25.56% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | 54.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 40.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Knowledge16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 39.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 88.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 25.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | 2.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 26.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 36.900% | 26.207% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 16.700% | 8.333% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | 78.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | 81.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | 68.2% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | 78.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | 1249 | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 36.900% and 26.207%.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 31.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 77.1 versus 62. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 79.8. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.