The Right-Sized LLM Benchmark Cheapest LLM that's good enough.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview at a glance

Good enough on 16/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 0 tasks. Doesn't qualify on any: Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions.

Provider
Gemini
Model name
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Cost mode:
Qualifies on
16 / 52 tasks (at 90% bar)
Best value on
0 tasks

Cost vs quality across all tasks

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Research Query Generation — quality 8.53, 3.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionStructured Output Extraction — quality 9.84, 155.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionActivity Feed Blurb Generation — quality 8.18, 17.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSubstack Newsletter — quality 8.87, 19.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionS-1 TOC Extraction — quality 9.06, 10.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionAuthor Living-Person Safety Check — quality 8.76, 16.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Detection — quality 9.93, 47.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPublication Title Generation — quality 8.43, 14.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Naming — quality 7.94, 3.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Grouping and Client Matching — quality 7.98, 6.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionEngagement Triage — quality 8.43, 26.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPrompt Adaptation — quality 8.68, 23.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionX Post Selection — quality 8.51, 11.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionAuthor Matching — quality 8.40, 1.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionEngagement Reply Draft — quality 7.97, 7.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic-to-Section Assignment — quality 8.10, 8.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Author MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching93%HIGH1.8x
Topic Cluster NamingTopic Organization & Clustering91%HIGH3x
Research Query GenerationInfrastructure & Utility100%HIGH3.2x
Topic Grouping and Client MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching93%RANKED6.2x
Engagement Reply DraftSocial & Promotional Content94%HIGH7.7x
Topic-to-Section AssignmentTopic Organization & Clustering90%MEDIUM8x
S-1 TOC ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction97%HIGH11x
X Post SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching97%HIGH12x
Publication Title GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis94%RANKED15x
Author Living-Person Safety CheckRelevance, Classification & Matching94%HIGH16x
Activity Feed Blurb GenerationSocial & Promotional Content93%RANKED18x
Substack NewsletterLong-form Content Generation96%HIGH19x
Prompt AdaptationInfrastructure & Utility98%RANKED24x
Engagement TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching95%RANKED26x
Language DetectionRelevance, Classification & Matching99%RANKED48x
Structured Output Extraction bestStructured Data & Fact Extraction100%RANKED155x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.