Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Granite 4.0 Micro
Granite 4.0 Micro costs 13.4x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($0.112 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Granite 4.0 Micro: 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 131K tokens).
- Shared results
- 8
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 9
- Granite 4.0 Micro only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 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
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Granite 4.0 Micro has a AA Intelligence Index result, 5.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Granite 4.0 Micro $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Granite 4.0 Micro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 77.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 80.0% against Granite 4.0 Micro 2.8%, 77.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Granite 4.0 Micro $0.112 per million output tokens, 13.4x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Granite 4.0 Micro 131K.
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 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Bars | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Math | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 8 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 18.0% | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| SciCode | 43.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 24.2% | 1.5% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| WeirdML | 52.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 5.1 | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.3% | 12.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| 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 | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.2% | 33.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.2% | 5.0% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 81.8% | 28.3% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| 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 | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 6.0 | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 6.0% | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | 2.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 27.7% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 44.7% | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.2% | 24.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 74.3% | 7.0% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| 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 generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Granite 4.0 Micro | 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
Granite 4.0 Micro costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro 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 | IBM Granite 4.0 Micro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | IBM Granite | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | October 20, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.017 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.112 |
| 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 Granite 4.0 Micro 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 131K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Granite 4.0 Micro?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Granite 4.0 Micro costs $0.017 and $0.112. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Granite 4.0 Micro?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Granite 4.0 Micro comparison based on?
8 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 Granite 4.0 Micro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.