Gemini 3.1 Pro Google 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.009000
Output: $0.009000
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 10,000 input tokens and 1,500 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.010000
- Output Cost: $0.009000
- Total Cost: $0.016750 (rounded ~ $0.02)
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.001457
- Tokens per dollar: 686,567 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 400 tokens per second and 220ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 29.79 seconds
- Latency: 220 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 400 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 388 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Gemini 3.1 Pro. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.067500 (rounded ~ $0.07)
Output: $0.067500 (rounded ~ $0.07)
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 10,000 input tokens and 1,500 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.075000 (rounded ~ $0.08)
- Output Cost: $0.067500 (rounded ~ $0.07)
- Total Cost: $0.142500 (rounded ~ $0.14)
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.012391 (rounded ~ $0.01)
- Tokens per dollar: 80,702 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 340 tokens per second and 260ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 35.02 seconds
- Latency: 260 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 340 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 330 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for GPT-5.5 Pro. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to Gemini 3.1 Pro| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs Gemini 3.1 Pro | vs GPT-5.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000306 Best Value | ↓ 98.2% cheaper | ↓ 99.8% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.001047 | ↓ 93.8% cheaper | ↓ 99.3% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google
|
$0.001519 | ↓ 90.9% cheaper | ↓ 98.9% cheaper |
| #4 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.001519 | ↓ 90.9% cheaper | ↓ 98.9% cheaper |
| #5 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.001531 | ↓ 90.9% cheaper | ↓ 98.9% cheaper |
| #6 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Google
|
$0.002859 | ↓ 82.9% cheaper | ↓ 98% cheaper |
| #7 |
GPT-5.4 mini
OpenAI
|
$0.003141 | ↓ 81.3% cheaper | ↓ 97.8% cheaper |
| #8 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.003438 | ↓ 79.5% cheaper | ↓ 97.6% cheaper |
| #9 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.003781 | ↓ 77.4% cheaper | ↓ 97.3% cheaper |
| #10 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.003813 | ↓ 77.2% cheaper | ↓ 97.3% cheaper |
| #11 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.004188 | ↓ 75% cheaper | ↓ 97.1% cheaper |
| #12 |
GPT-5.6 Luna
OpenAI
|
$0.004188 | ↓ 75% cheaper | ↓ 97.1% cheaper |
| #13 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
|
$0.005719 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 65.9% cheaper | ↓ 96% cheaper |
| #14 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.006281 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 62.5% cheaper | ↓ 95.6% cheaper |
| #15 |
Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
|
$0.007625 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 54.5% cheaper | ↓ 94.6% cheaper |
| #16 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.008641 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 48.4% cheaper | ↓ 93.9% cheaper |
| #17 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.008641 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 48.4% cheaper | ↓ 93.9% cheaper |
| #18 |
GPT-5.6 Terra
OpenAI
|
$0.010469 | ↓ 37.5% cheaper | ↓ 92.7% cheaper |
| #19 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.010750 | ↓ 35.8% cheaper | ↓ 92.5% cheaper |
| #20 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.010750 | ↓ 35.8% cheaper | ↓ 92.5% cheaper |
| #21 |
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.011438 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 31.7% cheaper | ↓ 92% cheaper |
| #22 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.012344 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 26.3% cheaper | ↓ 91.3% cheaper |
| #23 |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
|
$0.019063 | ↑ 13.8% more | ↓ 86.6% cheaper |
| #24 |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
|
$0.019063 | ↑ 13.8% more | ↓ 86.6% cheaper |
| #25 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.019063 | ↑ 13.8% more | ↓ 86.6% cheaper |
| #26 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.019063 | ↑ 13.8% more | ↓ 86.6% cheaper |
| #27 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.020938 | ↑ 25% more | ↓ 85.3% cheaper |
| #28 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.020938 | ↑ 25% more | ↓ 85.3% cheaper |
| #29 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.020938 | ↑ 25% more | ↓ 85.3% cheaper |
| #30 |
GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI
|
$0.020938 | ↑ 25% more | ↓ 85.3% cheaper |
| #31 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.034375 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 105.2% more | ↓ 75.9% cheaper |
| #32 |
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.037656 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 124.8% more | ↓ 73.6% cheaper |
| #33 |
Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.037656 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 124.8% more | ↓ 73.6% cheaper |
| #34 |
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
|
$0.038125 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 127.6% more | ↓ 73.2% cheaper |
| #35 |
Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic
|
$0.038125 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 127.6% more | ↓ 73.2% cheaper |
| #36 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.041875 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 150% more | ↓ 70.6% cheaper |
| #37 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.068750 (rounded ~ $0.07) | ↑ 310.4% more | ↓ 51.8% cheaper |
| #38 |
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
|
$0.076250 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 355.2% more | ↓ 46.5% cheaper |
| #39 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.103688 (rounded ~ $0.10) | ↑ 519% more | ↓ 27.2% cheaper |
| #40 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.103688 (rounded ~ $0.10) | ↑ 519% more | ↓ 27.2% cheaper |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.8 Flash Google
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
o4-mini OpenAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
GPT-5.6 Luna OpenAI
Gemini 3.6 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Terra OpenAI
Grok 4.3 xAI
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
Choosing between Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5 Pro for clinical summaries often comes down to multimodal needs versus deep agentic reasoning. Gemini 3.1 Pro excels in environments where the clinical data input is heterogeneous, such as transcribing audio dictations alongside scans or images, thanks to its natively multimodal architecture. It effectively handles long-context inputs, making it valuable for comprehensive patient case reviews. Conversely, GPT-5.5 Pro is frequently the stronger candidate for high-stakes, multi-step clinical reasoning tasks where deep logic is required to synthesize lab trends or complex patient history. Its agentic capabilities are particularly suited for scenarios where the AI must not just summarize, but evaluate clinical information against standard medical guidelines. While both models provide high levels of accuracy, Gemini 3.1 Pro’s strength in processing native multimodal inputs often makes it the more efficient choice for direct dictation workflows where audio-to-text accuracy is paramount. GPT-5.5 Pro, however, provides a more robust reasoning framework for complex diagnostic or triage support tasks where logical synthesis and safety-critical alignment are the primary bottlenecks. For mid-market SaaS providers, the decision rests on whether the workflow is more document-intensive or requires complex diagnostic evaluation.