Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 costs 7.5x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($0.20 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Solar Mini 4: 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 524K tokens) and work measured by SciCode or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
- 13
- Solar Mini 4 only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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 Solar Mini 4 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 24.1.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Solar Mini 4 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1159.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens against 524K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Solar Mini 4
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $0.0010, Solar Mini 4 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Solar Mini 4 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 9.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 74.3% against Solar Mini 4 83.3%, 9.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Solar Mini 4 $0.20 per million output tokens, 7.5x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Solar Mini 4 524K.
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 | Solar Mini 4 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 43.4% | 47.6% | Solar Mini 4 |
| 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 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 24.1 | Only Solar Mini 4 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 | Solar Mini 4 | 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 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | 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% | 25.8% | Solar Mini 4 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 81.8% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.2% | 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 | Solar Mini 4 | 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 | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1159 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1109 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1150 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 77.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 74.3% | 83.3% | Solar Mini 4 |
| 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 | Solar Mini 4 | 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
Solar Mini 4 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 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 | Upstage Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Upstage | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | September 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 524K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.25 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.20 |
| 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 Solar Mini 4 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 524K tokens) and work measured by SciCode or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Solar Mini 4?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Solar Mini 4?
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 524K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Solar Mini 4 comparison based on?
3 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 Solar Mini 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.