Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Which AI Model Is Better?

Updated March 24, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data

Quick Verdict

Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads in intelligence with a score of 57.2 vs 19.4. Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash is 6.7x cheaper at $0.30/1M tokens vs $2.00/1M. For speed, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash wins at 343 tok/s vs 117 tok/s.

Head-to-Head Comparison

MetricGoogle: Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Intelligence Score19.457.2
Coding Score14.555.5
Math Score46.7N/A
Speed (tok/s)343 tok/s117 tok/s
Latency (TTFT)0.31s21.91s
Input Price / 1M tokens$0.30$2.00
Output Price / 1M tokens$2.50$12
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Max Output Tokens66K66K
Input ModalitiesFile + Image + Text + Audio + VideoAudio + File + Image + Text + Video
Output ModalitiesTextText
Free TierNoNo

Detailed Analysis

Intelligence & Quality

Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview outperforms Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis intelligence index with a score of 57.2 compared to 19.4. For coding tasks, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has the edge with a coding score of 55.5 vs 14.5.

Speed & Latency

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash generates output significantly faster at 343 tok/s compared to Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's 117 tok/s, making it 2.9x faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 0.31s for Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash vs 21.91s for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.

Pricing

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash is more affordable at $0.30/1M input tokens ($2.50/1M output), while Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview costs $2.00/1M input ($12/1M output). That makes Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 6.7x more expensive per token, which can add up significantly at scale. For a typical workload of 100 requests per day at 2,000 tokens each, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash would cost approximately $1.80/month vs $12.00/month for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview in input costs alone.

Context Window

Both models support the same context window of 1.0M tokens (approximately 524 pages of text). For output length, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview can generate up to 66K tokens per response vs 66K for Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash.

Best Use Cases

Choose Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash when you need faster output (343 tok/s), lower cost. Choose Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview when you need higher intelligence (57.2), stronger coding performance (55.5).

Choose Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash if:

  • You need faster throughput (343 tok/s vs 117 tok/s)
  • You want lower latency (0.31s vs 21.91s TTFT)
  • Budget is a concern ($0.30/1M vs $2.00/1M)

Choose Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview if:

  • You need higher intelligence (score: 57.2 vs 19.4)
  • You prioritize coding performance (score: 55.5 vs 14.5)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview for coding?

Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks (55.5 vs 14.5), making it the better choice for programming tasks.

Which is cheaper, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30/1M input tokens vs $2.00/1M for Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.

Is Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash faster than Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash is faster, producing output at 343 tok/s compared to Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's 117 tok/s.

Can Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash process images?

Yes, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash supports image input. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview also supports images.

Which has a larger context window, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

Both models have the same context window of 1.0M tokens.

Should I use Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash or Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?

It depends on your priorities. Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on intelligence (57.2), but Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash may be better for specific use cases like budget-conscious projects or speed-critical applications.

Related Comparisons

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis

Data last synced: March 24, 2026