Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.1

Model Markets Rankings

Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency

All rankings →
RankingGemini 3.1 ProGPT-5.1
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#22 of 36$0.161 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort

Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGPT-5.1
LMArena Document Arenadocument-2026-07-30-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,445.32100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1439.35538449, 1451.29339146]; votes 45162; rank 231,400.8497% of row best · rating · gpt-5.1; 95% CI [1391.40144375, 1410.27736947]; votes 8220; rank 37
LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-08-24-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,210.46100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-grounding; 95% CI [1205.32063396, 1215.60669852]; votes 113282; rank 91,199.4499% of row best · rating · gpt-5.1-search; 95% CI [1194.20592738, 1204.68165473]; votes 59909; rank 14
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,480.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1476.89767236, 1483.30025658]; votes 102763; rank 111,422.4796% of row best · rating · gpt-5.1; 95% CI [1418.85253526, 1426.08681113]; votes 43002; rank 96
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-08-27-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader1,295.39100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1289.75236576, 1301.03738662]; votes 39412; rank 171,235.1995% of row best · rating · gpt-5.1; 95% CI [1227.44529223, 1242.93837299]; votes 10223; rank 60
ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader79.89100% of row best · points · Gemini 3.1 Pro (high thinking) · 10,009 output tokens / case75.9895% of row best · points · GPT-5.1 · 3,970 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above5 benchmark winsOverall lead0 benchmark wins

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

FieldAt a Glance
Google DeepMind · previewGemini 3.1 ProVerified Aug 29, 2026
OpenAI · activeGPT-5.1Verified Sep 3, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldGemini 3.1 ProGPT-5.1
DeveloperGoogle DeepMindOpenAI
FamilyGemini 3Gpt 5 1
ModelGemini 3.1 ProGPT-5.1
VersionGemini 3.1 ProGPT-5.1
Lifecyclepreviewactive
ReleasedUnknown2025-11-13
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2024-09-30
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, Audio, DocumentText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,049K400K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessGoogle AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard)Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$2.00
Output price$12.00
Serving providers2
Canonical IDgoogle-deepmind/gemini-3.1-pro-preview

GPT-5.1 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Input price$1.25
Output price$10.00
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-5.1

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vsfamily variantstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GPT-5.1 FAQs

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 and GPT-5.1 is $1.25 per million tokens, so GPT-5.1 is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 and GPT-5.1 is $10.00 per million tokens, so GPT-5.1 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 1,049K and GPT-5.1 supports 400K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 5 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight; GPT-5.1 is not marked open weight.

Can Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.1 understand images?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input; GPT-5.1 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

GPT-5.1 has the larger sourced maximum output: Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 66K and GPT-5.1 supports 128K output tokens.

Do Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.1 support reasoning and tool use?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GPT-5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; GPT-5.1 has 2, a tie.

Which offers better value, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GPT-5.1?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback