Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Mixtral 8x22B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 4 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 LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
4
Mixtral 8x22B InstructMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
5.7
Output $/M
$6.00
0
vs boards won of 4 shared

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 output tokens cost 4.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 66K tokens.

Shared results
4
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
11
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct only
3
Like-for-like categories
3 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 not benchmarked, Mixtral 8x22B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 31.1 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 82.2% against Mixtral 8x22B Instruct 33.2%, 49.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Mixtral 8x22B Instruct $6.00 per million output tokens, 4.0x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Mixtral 8x22B Instruct 66K.

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 LiteBarsMixtral 8x22B InstructTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
General10
All shared boards40
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured14.8%Only Mixtral 8x22B Instruct 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
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured5.7Only Mixtral 8x22B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities Index144.3122.0Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
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 Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
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 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.2%33.2%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.2%4.0%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%Not measuredOnly 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
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
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
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
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured53.7%Only Mixtral 8x22B Instruct 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
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
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%55.1%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
LMCA35.0%Not measuredOnly 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
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteMixtral 8x22B InstructLeader
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
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct$0.0050Fits 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
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct$0.118Fits in one request

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.065Fits in one request
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct$0.460Exceeds 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 Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteMistral Mixtral 8x22B Instruct
MakerGoogleMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 7, 2026April 17, 2024
Context window1.05M66K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$2.00
Output $/Mtok$1.50$6.00
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 Mixtral 8x22B Instruct 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 output tokens cost 4.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 66K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Mixtral 8x22B Instruct?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Mixtral 8x22B Instruct costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Mixtral 8x22B Instruct?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Mixtral 8x22B Instruct comparison based on?

4 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 Mixtral 8x22B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next