AI model comparison
Compare recorded price, context, output limits, speed, latency, capabilities, and input/output support. Every missing value stays visible, and unsourced benchmarks are excluded.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite both come up when teams are choosing a model for production work, and the honest answer usually depends on your workload rather than a leaderboard. This page puts their published specifications side by side — context window, token pricing, supported inputs and outputs — so you can see where they actually differ.
Google's cheapest Gemini 3 model, with a 1,048,576-token context window and $0.25/$1.50 per million token pricing for high-volume, cost-sensitive work.
Accepts
Produces
Google's low-cost Gemini 3 model with a 1,048,576-token context window, vision support, and $0.30/$2.50 per million token pricing for volume workloads.
Accepts
Produces
At a glance
This is a directional summary of the values recorded in this directory—not a universal quality verdict. Test the finalists on your own prompts before committing.
Where Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite leads in recorded data
Where Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads in recorded data
No complete recorded factor currently favors this model. That does not establish lower real-world quality.
Context capacity
Higher listed limit
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:1.0M
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:1.0M
Same recorded value
Maximum output
Higher listed limit
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:65.5K
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:65.5K
Same recorded value
Input price
Lower recorded price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:$0.25
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:$0.30
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Output price
Lower recorded price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:$1.50
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:$2.50
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Output speed
Higher recorded throughput
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:—
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:—
No complete comparison
Time to first token
Lower recorded latency
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:—
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:—
No complete comparison
Intelligence Index
Higher directory index
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite:—
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite:—
No complete comparison
Evidence
A score appears only when both records include a verified source. It is not treated as a universal ranking.
Specifications
| Specification | Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Model family | gemini-flash-lite | gemini-flash-lite |
| Accepted inputs | text, image, video, audio, pdf | text, image, video, audio, pdf |
| Produced outputs | text | text |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Max output | 65.5K | 65.5K |
| Intelligence Index | — | — |
| Input price / 1M | $0.25Recorded lead | $0.30 |
| Output price / 1M | $1.50Recorded lead | $2.50 |
| Output speed | — | — |
| Time to first token | — | — |
| Reasoning mode | Documented | Documented |
| Tool calling | Documented | Documented |
| Image input | Documented | Documented |
| Audio input | Documented | Documented |
| Structured output | Documented | Documented |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Released | May 7, 2026 | Jul 21, 2026 |
Workload guidance
On the published numbers, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts the larger context window and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper per input token. Which matters more depends on whether your bottleneck is document size or spend — the table above has the exact figures.
Provenance
Prices and hosted performance can change. SyncDev records source references and clearly separates documented specifications from measured values; confirm commercial terms with the provider before deployment.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google · model record and recorded source
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Google · model record and recorded source
Choose any two approved model records and review them with the same evidence rules.