Ember-1 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs 10.0x less per output token than Ember-1 ($1.50 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- 52.6
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $15.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.50
Ember-1 or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: which to pick
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($1.50 vs $15.00 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite on SciCode, Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and WeirdML. Compare them on price and context instead.
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
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1.05M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Ember-1 $0.011, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Ember-1 $15.00 against Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1.05M tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 20.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 83.9% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 32.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 46.3% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 69.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| 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 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 44.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.4% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 67.0% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 5.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 31.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| 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 32 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 22.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| 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 | Not measured | 67.2% | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | 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 | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| 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 41 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
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 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 | Fireworks Ember-1 | Google Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Fireworks | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 24, 2026 | May 7, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $3.00 | $0.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $15.00 | $1.50 |
| Coding index | 52.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ember-1 better than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for coding?
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($1.50 vs $15.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 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, Ember-1 or Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.
Has any benchmark tested both Ember-1 and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite on SciCode, Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and WeirdML. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.