UI-TARS 7B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
UI-TARS 7B costs 7.5x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($0.20 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
UI-TARS 7B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick UI-TARS 7B for output tokens 7.5x cheaper ($0.20 vs $1.50 per million) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 1
- UI-TARS 7B only
- 0
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
UI-TARS 7B
UI-TARS 7B $0.0002, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- UI-TARS 7B not benchmarked, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 46.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Kagi LLM Benchmark: UI-TARS 7B 20.7% against Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 67.2%, 46.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- UI-TARS 7B $0.20 against Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 per million output tokens, 7.5x apart.
- Context window
- UI-TARS 7B takes 128K tokens, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | UI-TARS 7B | Bars | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | Not measured | 43.4% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 24.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 52.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 144.3 | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 31.3% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | Not measured | 37.3% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 82.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 17.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 81.8% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 20.7% | 67.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 80.0% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 27.7% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 77.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 74.3% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 76.8% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 35.0% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | UI-TARS 7B | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
UI-TARS 7B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
UI-TARS 7B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
UI-TARS 7B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | ByteDance UI-TARS 7B | Google Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | ByteDance | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 22, 2025 | May 7, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.20 | $1.50 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is UI-TARS 7B better than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick UI-TARS 7B for output tokens 7.5x cheaper ($0.20 vs $1.50 per million) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, UI-TARS 7B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
UI-TARS 7B costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 and $1.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, UI-TARS 7B or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the UI-TARS 7B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. UI-TARS 7B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.