Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GPT-3.5 Turbo

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo cost about the same per output token ($1.50 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
3
GPT-3.5 TurboOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-3.5 Turbo: 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 a larger context window (1.05M against 16K tokens).

Shared results
3
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
13
GPT-3.5 Turbo only
10
Like-for-like categories
2 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GPT-3.5 Turbo not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 52.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 82.2% against GPT-3.5 Turbo 29.7%, 52.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Both cost $1.50 per million output tokens.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-3.5 Turbo 16K.

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 LiteBarsGPT-3.5 TurboTies
Reasoning10
General20
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured10.7Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
SciCode43.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)24.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
WeirdML52.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
SciCodeNot measured0.0%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured5.5Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Epoch Capabilities Index144.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
DeepResearch Bench37.3%Not measuredOnly 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 index10
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured30.6%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.2%29.7%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
BIG-Bench HardNot measured61.6%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark67.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 327.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
GSM8KNot measured57.8%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured64.4%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured58.5%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured46.2%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MMLUNot measured68.5%Only GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
IFBench77.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
DTBench76.8%48.5%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
LMCA35.0%9.7%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
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
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGPT-3.5 TurboLeader
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$0.0010Fits in one request
GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.0013Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.017Fits in one request
GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.029Exceeds the context window

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.065Fits in one request
GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.115Exceeds the context window

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.

Specifications of Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-3.5 Turbo
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteOpenAI GPT-3.5 Turbo
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMay 7, 2026May 28, 2023
Context window1.05M16K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.50
Output $/Mtok$1.50$1.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than GPT-3.5 Turbo for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for a larger context window (1.05M against 16K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $0.50 and $1.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-3.5 Turbo?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GPT-3.5 Turbo comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-3.5 Turbo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next