RankingEffort benchmarks

Gemini 3.1 Pro · High

Compare models

81 measured results · 6 effort settings · 79 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AGemini 3.1 Pro · High4 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A40.1Supported
Hard reasoning
A57.8Supported
Coding
A30.2Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A79.0Supported
Multimodal
Unknown
Long context
Unknown

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Gemini 3.1 Pro · High: 34.8 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

5 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Shared-result disagreement. This aggregate order conflicts with matched benchmark results against 1 other configurations. Different test coverage and opponents affect the fit. Inspect published results before treating the rank as conclusive.

Which sources carry the weight?

Moonshot AI · 19.9% direct comparison weight · provider report
Datacurve · 14.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Scale · 14.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Vals AI · 14.2% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
LiveBench · 13.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Epoch AI · 13.6% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Terminal-Bench · 8.9% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

DeepSWE · 14.8% direct comparison weight
Terminal-Bench · 10.5% direct comparison weight
CharXiv · 8.5% direct comparison weight
Humanity’s Last Exam · 7.6% direct comparison weight
enigma-eval · 7.2% direct comparison weight
Other families (21) · 51.4% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

DeepSWE v1.1 review: Epoch AI reported grading errors in at least 23 of 113 tasks. These published results remain included. Review their limitations in Epoch's review when interpreting this evidence.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-20.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	94 → 95	Down 1	203 remaining / 241 lost	32.7 (-2.1 points)
ARC Prize	103 → 106	Down 3	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.3 (+2.5 points)
Datacurve	103 → 80	Up 23	444 remaining / 0 lost	39.1 (+4.4 points)
LiveCodeBench	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.7 (-0.0 points)
Scale	103 → 113	Down 10	444 remaining / 0 lost	31.2 (-3.5 points)
Terminal-Bench	103 → 96	Up 7	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.3 (+2.5 points)
Cognition	103 → 105	Down 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.0 (-0.8 points)
LiveBench	103 → 109	Down 6	443 remaining / 1 lost	33.1 (-1.7 points)
SWE-rebench	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.5 (-0.2 points)
Epoch AI	101 → 110	Down 9	431 remaining / 13 lost	31.9 (-2.9 points)
Vals AI	103 → 96	Up 7	443 remaining / 1 lost	36.2 (+1.5 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	103 → 99	Up 4	444 remaining / 0 lost	35.4 (+0.6 points)
Provider reports · Meta	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	103 → 103	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.8 (+0.0 points)
All provider reports	103 → 99	Up 4	444 remaining / 0 lost	35.4 (+0.7 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
deepswe	39.1	+4.4
terminal-bench	37.3	+2.5
hle	32.9	-1.8
mmmu-pro	33.0	-1.7
arc-agi	36.3	+1.6
simpleqa	33.9	-0.9
frontiercode	34.0	-0.8
aime	35.4	+0.7
livebench-instructions	34.1	-0.7
mmlu-pro	34.1	-0.6
multi-swe-bench	35.3	+0.5
enigma-eval	35.2	+0.5
livebench-coding	35.2	+0.4
livebench-language	34.4	-0.3
gpqa	34.4	-0.3
frontiermath	35.0	+0.3
swe-rebench	34.5	-0.2
harvey	35.0	+0.2
epoch-game-puzzles	35.0	+0.2
livebench-reasoning	35.0	+0.2
tau-bench	34.6	-0.2
vibe-code	34.9	+0.2
swe-atlas-test-writing	34.9	+0.2
apex-agents	34.6	-0.1
livebench-data	34.6	-0.1
arc-agi-3	34.6	-0.1
ifbench	34.6	-0.1
aa-lcr	34.6	-0.1
vals-code-migration	34.9	+0.1
vals-excel-modeling	34.9	+0.1
briefcase	34.9	+0.1
itbench	34.9	+0.1
gdp-pdf	34.8	+0.1
automationbench	34.8	+0.1
vals-finance-agent	34.8	+0.1
vals-legal-research	34.8	+0.1
terminal-bench-science	34.8	+0.1
vals-tax-agent	34.8	+0.1
swe-atlas-refactoring	34.7	-0.1
omniscience	34.8	+0.1
enterprise-ops	34.8	+0.0
livecodebench	34.8	+0.0
math500	34.8	+0.0
analyst-agent	34.8	+0.0
critpt	34.8	+0.0
livebench-math	34.8	+0.0
gdpval	34.8	+0.0
gmmlu	34.8	+0.0
swe-atlas-qna	34.8	-0.0
swe-bench-pro	34.8	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 197 observations, 70 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 127 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

2 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
1 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
1 · Fewer than two distinct model identities remain in this evaluation
1 · Run-specific qualification requires review: In the initial run, no epochs completed for 2/45 samples. Despite several re-runs of these two samples, no epochs completed. All epochs for the other 43/45 samples were correct. The model's score was edited to be 43/45.
3 · Effort is not identified
1 · Run-specific qualification requires review: In the initial run, 3% of samples failed to complete. Inspect defaults to not scoring these at all, but we override this behavior when >2% of epochs fail. For each sample, we average the score of the epochs that did complete for that sample. If none completed, we assign the random baseline of 25%. Then we average these scores across all samples. In this case, the resulting difference is very small: 94.1% modified vs. 94.4% original.
5 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
20 · Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.
40 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
43 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
2 · Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.
1 · MiniMax cites this comparator from the official Terminal-Bench leaderboard; a common protocol with its internal Terminus 2 run is not established. See MiniMax M3 benchmark figure, Terminal-bench 2.1 methodology.
3 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit.
1 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit. Composite index excluded to avoid double counting its ingredients.
2 · Legacy self-report lacks a reviewed comparison configuration
1 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Low	Medium	High	Thinking	Reasoning	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	41.25% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	456.5 Elo Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
APEX-Agents-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	32.01% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	82% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	35.43% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	17.71% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	42.17% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	17.8% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	791.8 Elo Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Global-MMLU-LiteArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	93.17% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	94.14% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Hallucination-Gated All-Pass RateArtificial Analysis · Stirrup; Harvey private dataset v1.1.0; 120 tasks across 24 practice areas; up to 200 turns; internet disabled; GPT-6 Sol, Grok 4.7 and Claude Opus 5.5 rubric judges; GPT-6 Sol High two-pass hallucination check; hallucination-gated all-pass averaged across judges Benchmark details Average over tasks of the share of the judge panel finding every rubric criterion passed, with a task zeroed on any material hallucination · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	0% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	47.03% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
IFBenchArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	77.14% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
ITBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Combined public and private Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) tasks · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	30.33% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	15.56% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	82.43% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	31.88 Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	54.85% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	58.68% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
𝜏²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	95.61% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	21.44% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	53.79% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	73.78% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	4.04% Reported settings Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,915 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Gemini 3.1 Pro · High

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results