LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview vs GPT-5.6 Sol

Updated October 21, 2026. 73 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGoogle
Coding
8.1
Overall
15.6
Output $/M
$1.50
3
GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI
Coding
76.7
Overall
47.0
Output $/M
$20.00
70
vs boards won of 73 shared

Decision reading

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 76.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.1 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview.

Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview when output tokens cost 13.3x less, or when a solved task costs $0.18 against $1.20.

Shared results
73
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview only
4
GPT-5.6 Sol only
63
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview 8.1 from 1 benchmark, GPT-5.6 Sol 76.7 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 41.8 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview 0.0% against GPT-5.6 Sol 80.5%, 80.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview $1.50 against GPT-5.6 Sol $20.00 per million output tokens, 13.3x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.6 Sol 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewBarsGPT-5.6 SolTies
Coding014
Intelligence01
Agentic work05
Reasoning07
Math02
Knowledge28
Web design08
General125
All shared boards370
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index014
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured89.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev12571616GPT-5.6 Sol
AA Coding Index34.777.4GPT-5.6 Sol
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)80.1%82.6%GPT-5.6 Sol
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)62.8%96.2%GPT-5.6 Sol
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.0%80.5%GPT-5.6 Sol
Code migration (Vals AI)4.6%52.9%GPT-5.6 Sol
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%1.5%GPT-5.6 Sol
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured91.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)34.1%85.8%GPT-5.6 Sol
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured54.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured76.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SciCodeNot measured57.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured65.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierCodeNot measured47.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierSWENot measured32.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GSO-BenchNot measured76.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
WeirdMLNot measured88.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MirrorCodeNot measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ALE-Bench797.72176.9GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: coding14001496GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: software and IT14131489GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: React12451620GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: HTML12761618GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: from an image13361609GPT-5.6 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
AA Intelligence Index15.647.0GPT-5.6 Sol
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured162.8Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
AA Agentic Index1.650.2GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1245Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1261Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1249Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1246Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1260Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1267Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1286Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1240Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench researchNot measured54.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench browserNot measured88.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured48.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured30.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)30.0%53.8%GPT-5.6 Sol
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)3.1%31.1%GPT-5.6 Sol
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)3.4%48.1%GPT-5.6 Sol
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)8.6%72.3%GPT-5.6 Sol
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured71.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured41.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Time Horizon Index (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)Not measured8.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured85.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
OSWorld 2.0Not measured27.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
BALROGNot measured60.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
PostTrainBenchNot measured36.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,619Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena SearchNot measured1261Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
GPQA Diamond81.1%95.2%GPT-5.6 Sol
LiveBench reasoningNot measured91.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured33.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)82.5%88.8%GPT-5.6 Sol
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured94.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured49.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured93.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ARC-AGINot measured97.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured92.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SimpleBenchNot measured64.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured59.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured58.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
EBR-benchNot measured44.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14071483GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: expert13981517GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14031477GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: diagrams12421305GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: homework12711305GPT-5.6 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
AIME83.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured100.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured89.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured82.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ProofBenchNot measured83.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: math14281473GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: mathematical work14171496GPT-5.6 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index28
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
MMLU Pro86.2%89.1%GPT-5.6 Sol
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.8%87.0%GPT-5.6 Sol
CaseLaw (Vals AI)55.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)59.4%64.4%GPT-5.6 Sol
TaxEval (Vals AI)71.8%74.8%GPT-5.6 Sol
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.0%67.3%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview
MedCode (Vals AI)47.6%44.0%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured69.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: science14251455GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281431GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: legal and government14181476GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: business and finance13891457GPT-5.6 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
Design Arena: websites10831321GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: UI components10711338GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: game dev10291368GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: data viz10451323GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: 3D10481385GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: all code categories10721341GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: SVG10521316GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: ASCII art11661302GPT-5.6 Sol
LiveBench designNot measured81.6%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index125
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured79.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured66.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SAGE (Vals AI)49.5%52.6%GPT-5.6 Sol
MedScribe (Vals AI)63.9%85.2%GPT-5.6 Sol
Vals Multimodal Index41.4%72.6%GPT-5.6 Sol
IFBenchNot measured72.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured84.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
DTBenchNot measured95.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMCANot measured58.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured93.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured56.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text14161457GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: instruction following13771483GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: creative writing14011449GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision12401281GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: English14141457GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: non-English14101451GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Chinese14601525GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: German14301476GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Japanese14131472GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Korean13921442GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: French14241472GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Spanish14211443GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Russian14201471GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Polish14431459GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: multi-turn14171461GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: longer queries13941481GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: writing and language14081462GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13861450GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: English12321280GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: Chinese12781313GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: reading text12461290GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: humor12661246Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview
LMArena Vision: captioning1259Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1308Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing12481283GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena DocumentNot measured1483Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewGPT-5.6 SolLeader
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

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview$0.0010Fits in one request
GPT-5.6 Sol$0.014Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview$0.017Fits in one request
GPT-5.6 Sol$0.260Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview$0.065Fits in one request
GPT-5.6 Sol$1.00Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview 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.

Specifications of Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewOpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 3, 2026July 9, 2026
Context window1.05M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.25$4.00
Output $/Mtok$1.50$20.00
Coding index8.176.7
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved task$0.18$1.20
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview better than GPT-5.6 Sol for coding?

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 76.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.1 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview when output tokens cost 13.3x less, or when a solved task costs $0.18 against $1.20.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview or GPT-5.6 Sol?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 and $20.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview costs $0.18 and GPT-5.6 Sol $1.20.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview vs GPT-5.6 Sol comparison based on?

73 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.6 Sol's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next