Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Sonar Pro
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 output tokens cost 10.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 200K tokens.
- Shared results
- 2
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 13
- Sonar Pro only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Sonar Pro has a AA Intelligence Index result, 7.6.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 200K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Sonar Pro $0.011 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Sonar Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 17.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 82.2% against Sonar Pro 57.8%, 24.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Sonar Pro $15.00 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Sonar Pro 200K.
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 | Sonar Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| 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 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 7.6 | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | 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 | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.2% | 57.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.2% | 6.6% | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite |
| 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 | Sonar Pro | 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 | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 75.5% | Only Sonar Pro 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 | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | 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 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Sonar Pro | 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
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 | Perplexity Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Perplexity | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $3.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $15.00 |
| 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 Sonar Pro 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 10.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 200K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Sonar Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro costs $3.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Sonar Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Sonar Pro 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 Sonar Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.