Gemini 3.1 Pro vs NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the stronger all-rounder.NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL is cheaper.
Scores updated · 20 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video40Gemini 3.1 Pro4 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Gemini 3.1 Pro3 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Gemini 3.1 Pro2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Gemini 3.1 Pro2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Gemini 3.1 Pro2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Gemini 3.1 Pro1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Gemini 3.1 Pro1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL costs 94% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Gemini 3.1 Pro pulls ahead
- Completes tasks by operating a computer desktopOSWorld-Verified+65.1points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+49.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+45.2points ahead
Where NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 20 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGemini 3.1 Pro
- Terminal-Bench HardGemini 3.1 Pro by 49.353.84.5+49.3
- SciCodeGemini 3.1 Pro by 32.558.726.2+32.5
AgentsGemini 3.1 Pro
- OSWorld-VerifiedGemini 3.1 Pro by 65.176.211.1+65.1
- GDPValGemini 3.1 Pro by 14.714.70+14.7
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro
- Humanity's Last ExamGemini 3.1 Pro by 41.5475.5+41.5
- GPQA DiamondGemini 3.1 Pro by 36.994.157.2+36.9
- CritPtGemini 3.1 Pro by 17.717.70+17.7
FactsGemini 3.1 Pro
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGemini 3.1 Pro by 41.449.17.7+41.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGemini 3.1 Pro by 40.354.914.6+40.3
Images and chartsGemini 3.1 Pro
- CharXiv (RQ)Gemini 3.1 Pro by 4283.341.3+42
- MMMU-ProGemini 3.1 Pro by 29.582.452.9+29.5
- MathVistaGemini 3.1 Pro by 14.790.275.5+14.7
- OCRBenchv2Gemini 3.1 Pro by 1.662.861.2+1.6
Following instructionsGemini 3.1 Pro
- IFBenchGemini 3.1 Pro by 45.277.131.9+45.2
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceGemini 3.1 Pro by 96.131.9-64.2+96.1
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Gemini 3.1 Pro by 74.395.621.3+74.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGemini 3.1 Pro by 57.168.811.7+57.1
- AA IntelligenceGemini 3.1 Pro by 22.229.77.5+22.2
- AA Agentic IndexGemini 3.1 Pro by 3.210.37.1+3.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL?
Gemini 3.1 Pro wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL wins none, but costs 94% less.
Which is better for coding?
Gemini 3.1 Pro. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Gemini 3.1 Pro costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million output tokens; NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL costs $0.20 and $0.60. That makes NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL about 94% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 20 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 15 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.