Google Just Broke the AI Pricing Rule (Yet Again)

Welcome back to SavvyMonk, your only dose of AI and tech news that actually matters.

In tech, we are generally used to a simple rule, if you want top-tier performance, you pay a premium for it. Today, we are looking at how Google just changed that script completely with a model that outperforms its rivals while aggressively undercutting them on price.

Let's get into it.

Your inbox is flooded with newsletters. Your feed is chaos. Somewhere in that noise are the insights that could transform your work—but who has time to find them?

The Deep View solves this. We read everything, analyze what matters, and deliver only the intelligence you need. No duplicate stories, no filler content, no wasted time. Just the essential AI developments that impact your industry, explained clearly and concisely.

Replace hours of scattered reading with five focused minutes. While others scramble to keep up, you'll stay ahead of developments that matter. 600,000+ professionals at top companies have already made this switch.

Join them today, for free.

Google just dropped the preview of Gemini 3.1 Pro, and it is demanding the industry's attention. It tops the benchmark charts against heavyweights like Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.2, but costs a fraction of the price to run.

That combination of state-of-the-art capability and bargain-basement pricing rarely happens.

The Leap from Gemini 3

Last year, Google set the industry standard by releasing the Gemini 3 class of models. It broke a lot of benchmarks at the time. Now, it’s back at it again.

Last week, Google did it again with the release of the newest version of its flagship model. The headline number everyone is talking about is Gemini 3.1 Pro’s score on ARC-AGI-2. This benchmark tests abstract reasoning, the kind of complex, multi-step thinking that separates genuinely capable models from ones that are just doing fancy pattern matching.

Gemini 3 Pro scored 31.1% on that benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro just scored 77.1%. That is a massive 148% jump in just a few months. It strongly suggests Google didn't just scale the model up; they fundamentally changed how it reasons.

It also set the highest score ever recorded on GPQA Diamond (a graduate-level science benchmark) and leads both Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.2 across most long-context and agentic tasks.

Plus, it supports multimodal inputs (text, images, audio, video) with a massive 1 million token context window. You can drop an entire codebase or a mountain of documentation into it in a single pass.

The Pricing difference Changes the Architecture Conversation

Performance aside, the actual disruptive part of this announcement is the API cost.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is priced at $2 per million tokens on input and $12 per million on output. Let's compare that to the competition:

If you are architecting systems at scale, this isn't just a rounding error. Let's say you have a workload processing 1 billion tokens a month. That will run you roughly $14,000 on Gemini 3.1 Pro. That exact same workload costs $40,000 on GPT-5.2, and a whopping $90,000 on Claude Opus.

For developers building AI features in production, a $76k difference in monthly overhead dictates your entire stack.

Stop losing nuance when you type prompts. Wispr Flow captures your spoken reasoning, removes filler, and formats it into a clear prompt that keeps examples, constraints, and tone intact. Drop that prompt into your AI tool and get fewer follow-up prompts and cleaner results. Works across your apps on Mac, Windows, and iPhone. Try Wispr Flow for AI to upgrade your inputs and save time.

Try Wispr Flow

Where it Does Not Win

Of course, benchmark dominance rarely tells the full story, and it is not a clean sweep for Google.

Claude Opus 4.6 holds narrow advantages on tool-augmented tasks and SWE-Bench Verified, a real-world software engineering benchmark. If you are building an agent that uses external tools heavily, or doing complex software automation, Anthropic's model still has an edge in some categories.

GPT-5.2 beats Gemini on SWE-Bench Pro, which tests practical code generation and debugging. OpenAI also has a deeper ecosystem of integrations, fine-tuning options, and enterprise tooling that matters for teams already built around it.

The honest picture, Gemini 3.1 Pro leads on 10 out of 13 comparable benchmarks against Claude Opus 4.6. That is a clear win, but not a shutout.

Why Google can Afford to Do This

The pricing strategy makes more sense when you consider what Google is actually selling.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is not just a standalone API product. It is the engine behind Google AI Studio, Vertex AI, NotebookLM, Gemini Enterprise, and Android Studio. Every developer who integrates this model deeply into their workflow becomes part of Google's cloud ecosystem.

This is Google using its infrastructure advantages to undercut rivals on price while staying competitive on performance. They can afford lower margins on the model because the model feeds everything else.

Anthropic does not have that. Their revenue is almost entirely model subscriptions and API calls. That structural difference means Google can price aggressively in ways Anthropic simply cannot match.

What this Means for Developers

If you are building AI-powered features in production, Gemini 3.1 Pro just changed the cost calculus for a few specific use cases:

Long context processing: The 1 million token context window means you can feed entire documents, codebases, or meeting transcripts without chunking. For document-heavy workflows, this alone justifies the switch.

High-volume API workloads: If you are making millions of API calls, the difference between $2 and $15 per million input tokens adds up fast. At scale, Gemini 3.1 Pro is 7x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 on a per-request basis.

Agentic and reasoning tasks: The jump in ARC-AGI-2 scores suggests the model is meaningfully better at multi-step reasoning, which matters for anything involving chained decisions, complex research, or autonomous task completion.

That said, if you are already deeply integrated with Anthropic or OpenAI's tooling, the switching cost is real. Benchmark scores are one input. Ecosystem fit, existing fine-tuning, team familiarity, and vendor reliability all matter too.

The Bottom Line

The AI model race just got more interesting. Google has released a model that outperforms its rivals on most benchmarks and charges a fraction of their price. That is a combination the competition will struggle to ignore.

For users, this is good news. Competition on both performance and price means better models at lower costs, faster. For Anthropic and OpenAI, it means the premium pricing era for frontier models might be shorter than they hoped.

Google called Gemini 3.1 Pro its "new baseline for complex problem solving." Based on the numbers, that is not just marketing. It is actually the benchmark leader right now.

The question is how long that lasts.

Category: Model Selection

"I am building [describe your AI feature or product]. I currently use [Claude/GPT/Gemini]. Based on my use case, help me evaluate whether switching to Gemini 3.1 Pro makes sense. Consider: context window needs, cost at my expected token volume, benchmark performance for my specific task type, switching costs, and ecosystem trade-offs. Give me a clear recommendation with reasoning."

If you are building with AI, would the pricing difference actually make you switch models or is ecosystem lock-in too strong? Hit reply, I read every response.

See you again with another story.

— Vivek

P.S. Know a developer who is still paying Claude Opus prices? Forward this. They can subscribe at https://savvymonk.beehiiv.com/