AI Agent StoreLow
Tested mode0.0 pts vs Low
3,331 output tokens
Google · REASONING EFFORT GUIDEGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
How much thinking?
Compare Low vs Medium where tested. Find the effort setting that fits your task, and see how much extra reasoning changes the result.
SAME MODEL. DIFFERENT THINKING.
Find Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview’s useful effort.
OckBench
Correct answers out of 200 problems. Domain proportions are 100 math, 60 coding and 40 science.
200 selected problems · Source release date not specified · Reviewed September 23, 2026Check the source ↗YOUR NEAR-BEST PICKMedium
Lowest measured token use within 1.0 points of the best tested overall accuracy.
87.5 / 100 · 7,116 output tokensExact best1.0 pts10 pts
Set 0 for the highest score. Increase the gap to explore cheaper or lighter options.
THE EFFORT CURVE
Does more thinking help?
● Near-best pickOrange = score decreased
Scores out of 100 · Full 0–100 scale · tap a point to select mode B. Cyan band: within 1.0 points of the best tested score.
WHAT YOU SPEND
Tokens used to answer
Source-reported average output tokens for the selected scope.
Low3,331
MediumNear-best pick7,116
Within this benchmark and harness. Your task mix, tools, caching and endpoint can change the result.
Score difference · B minus A+8.0 pts
Large gap · B scored higher
Score spread in this sweep8.0 pts
Best minus lowest tested score
Highest observed score87.5
Medium
Gap labels are editorial: under 1 point is small, 1–under 5 noticeable, 5+ large. They do not establish statistical significance. A tied score does not prove equivalent behavior.
EVERY TESTED MODE
2 modes · missing levels are not interpolatedThe numbers behind the choice
79.5 / 100
Medium
Near-best pick+8.0 pts vs Low
7,116 output tokens
Full benchmark table & exact configuration IDs
Swipe inside the table for all measures. Figures from different study selections are not directly comparable.
| Effort | Overall accuracy | Mathematics | Coding tests | Science | Cost / task | Median seconds | Output tokens | Exact source ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 79.5 | 73.0 | 91.7 | 77.5 | — | — | 3,331 | gemini-3.1-pro-preview-low |
| Medium | 87.5 | 87.0 | 90.0 | 85.0 | — | — | 7,116 | gemini-3.1-pro-preview-medium |
SCALE THE OBSERVED COST
Effort cost difference calculator
What would A versus B cost if you repeated this benchmark’s average workload?
A · Low—
B · Medium—
Difference—No measured cost for this sweep
This source has no comparable dollar-cost observation. Use the token calculator below with your own usage; token counts alone cannot supply a full bill.
YOUR WORKLOAD
Reasoning-token cost calculator
Estimate the extra bill from thinking tokens. The starting token counts are editable examples, not measurements of Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Rates start from our September 23 model snapshot.
A · Low$44estimated monthly cost
B · Medium$92estimated monthly cost
Mode B costs $48 more per month with these assumptions.
Standard text-token arithmetic. Excludes retries, tools, caching, long-context premiums, hosting and taxes. Includes thinking in output billing; do not also include it in “visible output.” Check endpoint limits separately. Changing mode does not automatically predict tokens or quality.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview effort benchmarks at a glance
Each card is its own comparable sweep. Scores from different benchmarks or question sets measure different work and are not averaged together.
Math, code & science · OckBench
Correct answers out of 200 problems. Domain proportions are 100 math, 60 coding and 40 science.
- Low
- 79.5
- Medium · pick
- 87.5
Near-best pick: Medium at 1-point tolerance. Score spread: 8.0 points.
Explore this sweep ↗Reasoning effort, explained
Which Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview thinking level is most efficient?
Medium is the lowest-token option within 1 point of the best overall accuracy in OckBench. The tested score range is 8.0 points. This uses a 1-point practical tolerance in the first listed study. Change the evidence, task measure and tolerance above to get a recommendation for another benchmark. It is a shortlist for testing your own workload.
Which Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview effort settings are compared?
Low, Medium appear in the collected studies. Each chart only includes modes tested together in that study. These published labels do not establish that every endpoint or application exposes every setting.
Does more effort improve Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
In the first listed OckBench sweep, the tested score range is 8.0 points and no adjacent effort increase lowers the score. This does not guarantee a gain on every task or in another harness.
How much more does high effort cost for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Use the A/B selector and measured-cost calculator when the source reports dollar costs. For your own agent, enter average input, visible output and thinking tokens in the token calculator. Higher effort is adaptive, so the label itself cannot tell you the bill. Missing costs stay missing.