Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Nano Banana 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs 5.0x less per output token than Nano Banana 2.1 ($1.50 vs $7.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.50
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $7.50
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Nano Banana 2.1: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 5.0x cheaper ($1.50 vs $7.50 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 66K tokens).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has results on SciCode, Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and WeirdML; Nano Banana 2.1 on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos. 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Image generation
Design Arena: images
No call
Only Nano Banana 2.1 has a Design Arena: images result, 1291.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 66K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Nano Banana 2.1 $0.0053 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Nano Banana 2.1 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
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Nano Banana 2.1 $7.50 per million output tokens, 5.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Nano Banana 2.1 66K.
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 Index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 43.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 24.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| WeirdML | 52.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | Not measured | 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 index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| DeepResearch Bench | 37.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| MCP Atlas | 57.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 81.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 27.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 74.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| DTBench | 76.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| LMCA | 35.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Nano Banana 2.1 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: images | Not measured | 1291 | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| Design Arena: graphic design | Not measured | 1333 | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| Design Arena: logos | Not measured | 1277 | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| LMArena Text to Image | Not measured | 1328 | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| LMArena Image Edit | Not measured | 1426 | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
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 | Google Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Google Nano Banana 2.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | ||
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | October 6, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 66K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $1.50 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $7.50 |
| 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 Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than Nano Banana 2.1 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for output tokens 5.0x cheaper ($1.50 vs $7.50 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 66K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Nano Banana 2.1?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Nano Banana 2.1 costs $1.50 and $7.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Nano Banana 2.1?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 66K.
Has any benchmark tested both Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Nano Banana 2.1?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has results on SciCode, Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and WeirdML; Nano Banana 2.1 on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.