Fronset Benchmark

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (archived)

Provider
Gemini
Model name
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
Last benchmarked
Qualified on
7 / 53 tasks (at the 90% bar)
Best value on
3 tasks

Good enough on 7/53 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 3 tasks. Doesn't qualify on any: Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions, Long-form Content Generation, Topic Organization & Clustering.

Cost vs quality across all tasks, as of 24 September 2026

0%25%50%75%100%5678910Quality score (5–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Generated Content Relevance Scoring — quality 8.22, 4.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionKnown Url Content Extraction — quality 5.60, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Bench Hypothesis Post Generation — quality 8.72, 1.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSocial Post Portfolio Selection — quality 8.50, 1.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionFactual Claim Refinement — quality 7.86, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Language Identification — quality 9.92, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Engagement Opportunity Triage — quality 8.40, 1.3x 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, as of 24 September 2026

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Language Identification ★Relevance, Classification & Matching99%RANKEDbest value
Factual Claim Refinement ★Infrastructure & Utility91%RANKEDbest value
Known Url Content Extraction ★ bestContent Summarization & Synthesis100%MEDIUMbest value
Bench Hypothesis Post GenerationSocial & Promotional Content95%HIGH1x
Engagement Opportunity TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching95%RANKED1.3x
Social Post Portfolio SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching97%HIGH1.5x
Generated Content Relevance ScoringRelevance, Classification & Matching90%MEDIUM4.1x

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.