Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Mistral Nemo
Updated October 21, 2026. 2 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 131K tokens.
- Shared results
- 2
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 13
- Mistral Nemo only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
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
Mistral Nemo
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Mistral Nemo $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Mistral Nemo not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 32.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Epoch Capabilities Index: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 144.3 against Mistral Nemo 118.7, 32.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Mistral Nemo $0.15 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Mistral Nemo 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 | Mistral Nemo | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | 118.7 | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | Not measured | 65.3% | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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% | 48.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| LMCA | 35.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| 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
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Mistral Nemo | 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
Mistral Nemo costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mistral Nemo costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mistral Nemo 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 | Mistral Nemo |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Mistral AI | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | July 19, 2024 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.15 |
| 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 Mistral Nemo for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 131K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Mistral Nemo?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Mistral Nemo?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Mistral Nemo comparison based on?
2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Mistral Nemo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.