Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.
shared result series
158
distinct benchmarks
31
latest retrieval
2026-09-04
Change model selection
Specifications
General specifications
Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.
Specifications for GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.
API pricing for GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Pricing by provider
Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.
Provider pricing for GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.
Capability profile from matched benchmarks
Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.
GPT-5.6 Sol
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Coding: 98.7 / 50.9 (5 benchmark families)
Reasoning: 99.9 / 99.5 (2 benchmark families)
Mathematics: 100 / 31.3 (1 benchmark family)
Knowledge: 93.6 / 100 (2 benchmark families)
Finance: 99.4 / 90 (5 benchmark families)
Legal: 99.8 / 47.7 (3 benchmark families)
Agentic tasks: 100 / 82.5 (1 benchmark family)
Multimodal: 100 / 99.3 (1 benchmark family)
32 matched rows from 28 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 14 comparable categories.
GPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
BrowseCompOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner90.4 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview85.9 %
Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner52.916 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview17.313 %
CorpFin v2Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 Sol64.375 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner64.491 %
CyberBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner88.136 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview36.441 %
EMBOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner72.339 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview52.616 %
EnigmaEvalOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolNo clear lead37.12% ± 2.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview36.78% ± 2.71
Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner53.756 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview42.982 %
GPQA DiamondOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 Sol95.202 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner95.454 %
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner2.5 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview0 %
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 SolWinner48.077 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview20.673 %
LegalBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 Sol86.965 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner87.398 %
LiveCodeBench v6Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
GPT-5.6 Sol82.604 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner88.485 %
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Benchmark scores for GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Benchmark and task
GPT-5.6 Sol
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Source
BrowseCompOverallTest details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1,266 tasksMetric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterCross-vendor comparison table with browsing tools. Exact agent systems differ.
Winner90.4 %
Editorial selection from the vendor table, not a complete extract of the comparison cohort.
85.9 %
Editorial selection from the vendor table, not a complete extract of the comparison cohort.
No documented difference in the test setupNo clear leadVersion: open-source release 2026-07-23Metric: pass@1 accuracyScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-high, Reasoning: high, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high, Reasoning: high, Attempts: pass@1Complex multimodal puzzles with exact answer matching and one attempt.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-xhigh, Reasoning: xhigh, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlGPT-5.6 Sol: Style-controlled Arena rating from 23,153 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 102,763 anonymous pairwise votes.
1,482.868
95% confidence interval: ±5.12The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Higher measured value1,486.746
95% confidence interval: ±3.217The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full finance setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-max, Reasoning: max, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Attempts: pass@1600 finance tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full legal setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-max, Reasoning: max, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Attempts: pass@1500 legal tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: Kaggle leaderboard 2026-08-03Metric: Kaggle leaderboard scoreScoring: Higher is better1,000 verified prompts without tools. Kaggle independently reproduced the results.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: 1,266 tasksMetric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Reasoning: ultraCross-vendor comparison table with browsing tools. Exact agent systems differ.
Higher measured value92.2 %
Editorial selection from the vendor table, not a complete extract of the comparison cohort.
85.9 %
Editorial selection from the vendor table, not a complete extract of the comparison cohort.
LMArena Text, Style ControlBusiness, management and financeTest details
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-xhigh, Reasoning: xhigh, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlGPT-5.6 Sol: Style-controlled Arena rating from 4,509 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 20,283 anonymous pairwise votes.
Higher measured value1,490.042
95% confidence interval: ±9.485The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
1,476.52
95% confidence interval: ±5.472The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterGPT-5.6 Sol: Snapshot: gpt-5.6-sol-xhigh, Reasoning: xhigh, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlGPT-5.6 Sol: Style-controlled Arena rating from 1,557 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 6,195 anonymous pairwise votes.
Higher measured value1,534.658
95% confidence interval: ±15.764The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
1,530.803
95% confidence interval: ±8.555The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Our model tests
Community tests you can inspect
Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the first attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. These results do not contribute to an overall score.
Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
GPT-5.6 Sol
API access was unavailable for this run. The model was not evaluated.
First attempt
Run date
7 Sept 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
openai/gpt-5.6-sol
Pinned endpoint
OpenAI | openai/gpt-5.6-sol-20260709
Reasoning setting
high
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Not run
Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
API access was unavailable for this run. The model was not evaluated.
First attempt
Run date
7 Sept 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Pinned endpoint
Google AI Studio | google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview-20260219
Reasoning setting
high
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Not run
Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.
Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.
The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.
Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.
More matchups
Related LLM comparisons
Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.