Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 leads overall, D to F. Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper per task. By suite, Composer 2.5 takes real-world issues (C- to D+) and spec planning (D to F). The data gives no reason to pick Gemini 3.1 Pro over Composer 2.5 this week.Measured
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
Verdict: Composer 2.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Composer 2.5 leads overall, D to F. By suite: Composer 2.5 takes real-world issues, C- to D+ (57% vs 53% capability); Composer 2.5 takes spec planning, D to F (48% vs 21% capability); vibe coding is even at F (27% vs 23% capability). Gemini 3.1 Pro used 15.9% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.038 per task at the listed price. Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.038). Composer 2.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 1m 34s against 4m 53s. Both finished every task on it. The data gives no reason to pick Gemini 3.1 Pro over Composer 2.5 this week.
Changed since W39: Gemini 3.1 Pro: real-world issues usage 9.8% to 14.8% of the weekly limit, spec planning usage 0.9% to 1.1% of the weekly limit, vibe coding usage 1.0% to 0.7% of the weekly limit; Composer 2.5: real-world issues D+ to C-.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 53% | 57% | +3% (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Median task time | 4m 53s | 1m 34s | 3m 19s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.045 / task | $0.021 / task | $0.024 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.1 Pro: 14.8% of Google AI Pro (88.9% / 5h, 14.8% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 1.6% of Cursor Pro (1.6% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 21% | 48% | +27% (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 46s | 1m 8s | 38s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.013 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.010 / task lower (Gemini 3.1 Pro leads) |
Gemini 3.1 Pro: 1.1% of Google AI Pro (6.5% / 5h, 1.1% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.4% of Cursor Pro (0.4% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 27% | 23% | +5% (Gemini 3.1 Pro leads) |
| Median task time | 4m 38s | 1m 37s | 3m 1s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.034 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.012 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.1 Pro: 0.7% of Google AI Pro (4.4% / 5h, 0.7% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.1 Pro clears higher: tier 3 of 5 versus tier 1 for Composer 2.5 on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-09-28.
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.1 Pro used 15.9% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.038 per task at the listed price. Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.038).