Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3
As of 2026-10-19: On the un-leaked meo benchmark, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the more accurate of the two (79.5% vs 66.5%), while SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 is cheaper per correct answer. Compared on accuracy, Effective Value (π), cost, speed, context, and pricing β all from the un-leaked meo benchmark.
| Metric | Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| meo rank | #15 | #29 |
| Accuracy | 79.5% | 66.5% |
| π index (top=100) | 3.2 | 1.7 |
| $ / correct answer | $0.0597 | $0.0127 |
| Seconds / correct | 44 | 20 |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1M |
| Price out ($/M) | $12.00 | $2.50 |
| Open weights | β | β |
Green = the stronger value on that metric. π indexed to the leaderboard top = 100.
Frequently asked questions
Is Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3?
On accuracy, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads (79.5% vs 66.5%). On Effective Value (π), which weights accuracy for deep agentic chains, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is ahead. βBetterβ depends on whether you optimize for accuracy, cost, or speed.
Which is cheaper, Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3?
SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 costs less per correct answer ($0.0127 vs $0.0597), which already accounts for accuracy β a cheap-but-wrong model is penalized.
Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 for agentic / coding work?
For long multi-step chains, rank by Effective Value (π): Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads here. Accuracy compounds across steps, so the more accurate model usually wins deep agentic work even if it is slower.
Full pages: Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (Google) Β· SpaceXAI: Grok 4.3 (xAI). More: all comparisons Β· full leaderboard Β· methodology.