Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8-Max
Gemini 3.1 Pro wins on Overall; Qwen3.8-Max wins on Coding. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.
Verdict at a glance
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro if you…
- Native audio and video
- Strong scientific computing
- Largest 2M context
- Search integration
- Best for: Multimodal, Scientific reasoning, Audio & video
Choose Qwen3.8-Max if you…
- Top-tier Chinese
- Balanced multimodal
- Alibaba Cloud ecosystem
- Good value
- Best for: Chinese tasks, Multimodal, Coding
Head-to-head aggregate scores
Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 22 tracked models.
Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.
Specs & pricing — every field side by side
List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.8-Max | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Google (US) | Alibaba (CN) | Different vendors |
| Released | 2026.05 | 2026.07 | Qwen3.8-Max is newer |
| Overall (rank) | 83 · #3 | 82 · #4 | Gemini 3.1 Pro +1 |
| Coding | 74 · #9 | 77 · #6 | Qwen3.8-Max +3 |
| Multimodal | 92 · #2 | 92 · #2 | Tie |
| Context window | 2M | 1M | Gemini 3.1 Pro larger |
| Max output | 128K | 128K | Tie |
| Effective-context | 92 | 95 | Qwen3.8-Max more reliable |
| Input $/1M | $2 | $2.5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro cheaper |
| Output $/1M | $12 | $7.5 | Qwen3.8-Max cheaper |
| Cache discount | none | 80% off | Qwen3.8-Max deeper |
| Speed | ~60 tok/s | ~55 tok/s | Gemini 3.1 Pro faster |
| TTFT | 0.7s | 0.6s | Qwen3.8-Max snappier |
| Function calling | 78 | 88 | Qwen3.8-Max ahead |
| Refusal rate | ~12% | ~10% | Qwen3.8-Max less restrictive |
| English | 90 | 78 | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Chinese | 75 | 98 | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Modalities | text, image, audio, video | text, image | different coverage |
| Open weights | No | No | Both closed |
| Fine-tuning | Yes | Yes | |
| Free tier | Gemini App free with limited quota; API free tier available | Free credits for new Alibaba Cloud Bailiang users | |
| SOC2 / no-train | yes / yes | no / yes | |
| Private deployment | No | Yes | Qwen3.8-Max |
Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 22-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.
Dimension-by-dimension analysis
Reasoning & overall intelligence
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads the overall aggregate by 1 points (83 vs 82). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Qwen3.8-Max remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.
Agentic coding
This is a modest gap: Qwen3.8-Max scores 77 against 74. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops Qwen3.8-Max needs fewer correction turns; Gemini 3.1 Pro is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.
Multimodal
They tie on the multimodal aggregate at 92. A concrete modality difference: Gemini 3.1 Pro additionally handles audio, video.
Speed & latency
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster in interactive use: ~60 tok/s with 0.7s TTFT versus ~55 tok/s with 0.6s TTFT (about 1.1× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.
Context: window vs usable recall
Nominal windows are 2M for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 1M for Qwen3.8-Max. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: Gemini 3.1 Pro advertises 2M but Qwen3.8-Max scores higher on effective-context (95 vs 92), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.
Price & total cost
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the cheaper API at $2/$12 versus Qwen3.8-Max at $2.5/$7.5 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 1.2× lower. Cache discounts (Qwen3.8-Max 80%) shift the effective bill, worked out below.
Chinese vs English
English: Gemini 3.1 Pro 90 vs Qwen3.8-Max 78. Chinese: 75 vs 98. For Chinese-language production, Qwen3.8-Max is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.
Tool use & ecosystem
Function-calling score: Gemini 3.1 Pro 78 vs Qwen3.8-Max 88, so Qwen3.8-Max has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.8-Max. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.
Cost worked example — same workload, real token math
Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.
| Scenario · per month | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.8-Max | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| List priceno cache applied | $560100M in × $2 + 30M out × $12 | $475100M in × $2.5 + 30M out × $7.5 | 1.18×gap |
| With caching90% of inputs cache-hit | $560no published cache discount | $29590M cached in × $0.5 + 10M in × $2.5 + 30M out × $7.5 | 1.90×gap |
Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.