Back to Value Frontier

Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) vs Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 9:50:06 AM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) against Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Both models are remarkably similar in API costs.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads with a statistical ELO score of 1300. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview)
Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview
Performance (ELO)
1300
1300
Input Cost / 1M
$0.50
$0.50
Output Cost / 1M
$3.00
$3.00
Context Window
65,536 tokens
1,048,576 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Tie wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) cheaper than Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview?

No. Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

The Google: Gemini 3 Flash Preview model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 1,048,576 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) vs Google: Gemma 3n 2B (free)Compare Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) vs Google: Gemma 3n 4B (free)Compare Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) vs Meta: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (free)Compare Google: Nano Banana 2 (Gemini 3.1 Flash Image Preview) vs Nous: Hermes 3 405B Instruct (free)