Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high) vs Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning)
Results updated 24 October 2026 · In Terminus-2 and Qwen Code, so part of any gap can come from the harness · How we benchmark
Verdict
Not comparable yet: Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high) is not yet ranked.
- Cost per task
- $0.22 vs $0.22
- Time per task
- 2.5 min vs 4.7 min (estimated)
- Tokens per attempt
- 69k vs 840k
- Image input
- Yes vs Yes
Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 scores higher on GeoBenchX; Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code scores higher on Earth-Bench V2.
Not yet ranked. Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2: no GS-QA2 score yet. Not in the Agent Index, cost and time charts until it has a score on every index evaluation. Results so far are in the side-by-side table.
Where they differ most
By kind of work, share of tasks passed, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
| Kind of work | Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high) | Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Recognising infeasible requests | 97 | 62 |
| GIS analysis | 40 | 75 |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis | 61 | 77 |
| Climate and time series | 73 | 63 |
Where the tasks are set: each kind of work links to its tasks and scoresCharts for each: Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 · Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code.
Side by side
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 | Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text only | 66 | 69 |
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text + vision | No data | No data |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 59 | 69 |
| GeoBenchX score | 73 | 63 |
| GS-QA2 score | No data | 75 |
| Vision agents score | No data | No data |
| GeoAgentBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 86 | 94 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 95 | 79 |
| OGD4All score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 97 |
| GeoNatureAgent score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 100 |
| MultiGlobeQA score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 74 |
| GeoAgentEval score (standalone; in no index) | No data | 88 |
| ImpactMesh score (standalone; in no index) | No data | No data |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis score | 61 | 77 |
| GIS analysis score | 40 | 75 |
| Climate and time series score | 73 | 63 |
| Spatial statistics score | 54 | 54 |
| Making maps score | 56 | 65 |
| Recognising infeasible requests score | 97 | 62 |
| Cost per task | $0.22 | $0.22 |
| Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) | 2.5 min | 4.7 min (estimated) |
| Tokens per attempt | 69k | 840k |
| Turns per attempt | 6.9 | 17.6 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $2.00 | $0.45 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $12.00 | $3.20 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 262,144 |
| Image input | Yes | Yes |
| Developer | Alibaba (Qwen) |
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 or Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code?
Not comparable yet: Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 is not yet ranked (no GS-QA2 score yet).
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 or Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code?
Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code, $0.22 to $0.22.
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 or Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code?
Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2, 13k to 28k.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2 or Qwen 3.8 27B (Reasoning), Qwen Code?
Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) (high), Terminus-2, 1,048,576 tokens to 262,144 tokens.