Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins on 18/35 benchmarks
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 18 of 35 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · coding · reasoning.
Category leads
speed·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewagentic·GPT-5.6 Terracoding·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewreasoning·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewknowledge·Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewgeneral·GPT-5.6 Terramath·GPT-5.6 Terra
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
#137 by perf·#5 by attention
GPT-5.3-Codex
#73 by perf·#4 by attention
GPT-5.6 Terra
#29 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
GPT-5.6 Terra
1.4x better value than GPT-5.3-Codex
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
6.9 pts/$
$7.00/M
GPT-5.3-Codex
7.1 pts/$
$7.88/M
GPT-5.6 Terra
9.5 pts/$
$7.00/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
35 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGPT-5.3-CodexGPT-5.6 Terra
Artificial Analysis · CritPt
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +12.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
17.7
GPT-5.3-Codex
16.9
GPT-5.6 Terra
30.0
Artificial Analysis · GPQA Diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
94.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
91.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
92.5
Artificial Analysis · Humanity's Last Exam
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
47.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
42.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
42.9
Artificial Analysis · IFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
75.4
GPT-5.6 Terra
71.2
Artificial Analysis · Long Context Reasoning
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +0.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
82.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
83.3
GPT-5.6 Terra
83.0
Artificial Analysis · MMMU Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
82.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
80.7
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +9.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
29.7
GPT-5.3-Codex
32.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
42.1
Artificial Analysis · tau2-Bench Telecom
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +9.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
GPT-5.3-Codex
86.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
86.3
Artificial Analysis · Terminal-Bench Hard
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +3.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
53.8
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
57.6
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +22.9
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
35.3
GPT-5.3-Codex
31.7
GPT-5.6 Terra
58.2
WeirdML
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +1.0
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
72.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
79.3
GPT-5.6 Terra
78.3
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +40.8
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
21.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
62.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +15.7
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
68.8
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.1
Artificial Analysis · GDPval
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +33.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
13.8
GPT-5.6 Terra
47.7
Artificial Analysis · SciCode
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
58.7
GPT-5.6 Terra
55.0
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
98.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
96.5
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +6.8
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.1
GPT-5.6 Terra
83.9
Balrog
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +3.8
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
57.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
53.2
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
52.6
GPT-5.6 Terra
51.6
Deepswe
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +57.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
11.7
GPT-5.6 Terra
69.6
Dtbench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +6.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.1
GPT-5.6 Terra
88.9
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +43.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.8
GPT-5.6 Terra
70.7
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +26.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
59.6
GPT-5.6 Terra
86.0
Furniture Assembly
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +34.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
0.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
34.5
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.5
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
92.6
GPT-5.6 Terra
91.1
Lmca
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +1.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
63.3
GPT-5.6 Terra
64.7
Metr Time Horizons
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +2.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
77.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.5
Mystery Game Puzzles
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +1.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
27.3
GPT-5.6 Terra
28.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +4.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
95.6
GPT-5.6 Terra
99.7
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +4.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
22.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
17.8
Proofbench
GPT-5.6 Terra leads by +48.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
26.0
GPT-5.6 Terra
74.0
SimpleBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +36.8
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
38.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +30.3
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
73.5
GPT-5.6 Terra
43.2
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +0.8
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
75.6
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.8
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads by +1.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
80.2
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.4
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | GPT-5.3-Codex | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · CritPt | 17.7 | 16.9 | 30.0 |
Artificial Analysis · GPQA Diamond | 94.1 | 91.5 | 92.5 |
Artificial Analysis · Humanity's Last Exam | 47.0 | 42.5 | 42.9 |
Artificial Analysis · IFBench | 77.1 | 75.4 | 71.2 |
Artificial Analysis · Long Context Reasoning | 82.0 | 83.3 | 83.0 |
Artificial Analysis · MMMU Pro | 82.4 | 78.5 | 80.7 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 29.7 | 32.5 | 42.1 |
Artificial Analysis · tau2-Bench Telecom | 95.6 | 86.0 | 86.3 |
Artificial Analysis · Terminal-Bench Hard | 53.8 | 53.0 | 57.6 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 35.3 | 31.7 | 58.2 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 72.1 | 79.3 | 78.3 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 21.4 | 62.2 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 68.8 | 53.1 | — |
Artificial Analysis · GDPval | 13.8 | — | 47.7 |
Artificial Analysis · SciCode | 58.7 | — | 55.0 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 98.0 | — | 96.5 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 77.1 | — | 83.9 |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 57.0 | — | 53.2 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 52.6 | — | 51.6 |
Deepswe | 11.7 | — | 69.6 |
Dtbench | 95.1 | — | 88.9 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | — | 70.7 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 59.6 | — | 86.0 |
Furniture Assembly | 0.0 | — | 34.5 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 92.6 | — | 91.1 |
Lmca | 63.3 | — | 64.7 |
Metr Time Horizons | 77.0 | 74.5 | — |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 27.3 | — | 28.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.6 | — | 99.7 |
PostTrainBench | 22.0 | 17.8 | — |
Proofbench | 26.0 | — | 74.0 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 75.5 | — | 38.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 73.5 | — | 43.2 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 75.6 | 74.8 | — |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 80.2 | 78.4 | — |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $45.00 | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 | |
| $2.00 | $12.00 | 1.1M tokens (~525 books) | $45.00 |