Google is terrible at marketing, but this feels like a big step forward.

As per the announcement, Gemini 3.1 Pro score 68.5% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, which makes it the top performer on the Terminus 2 harness [1]. That harness is a "neutral agent scaffold," built by researchers at Terminal-Bench to compare different LLMs in the same standardized setup (same tools, prompts, etc.).

It's also taken top model place on both the Intelligence Index & Coding Index of Artificial Analysis [2], but on their Agentic Index, it's still lagging behind Opus 4.6, GLM-5, Sonnet 4.6, and GPT-5.2.

---

[1] https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard/terminal-bench/2.0?agents=...

[2] https://artificialanalysis.ai

▲

saberience 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Benchmarks aren't everything.

Gemini consistently has the best benchmarks but the worst actual real-world results.

Every time they announce the best benchmarks I try again at using their tools and products and each time I immediately go back to Claude and Codex models because Google is just so terrible at building actual products.

They are good at research and benchmaxxing, but the day to day usage of the products and tools is horrible.

Try using Google Antigravity and you will not make it an hour before switching back to Codex or Claude Code, it's so incredibly shitty.

	▲	mustaphah 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's been my experience too; can't disagree. Still, when it comes to tasks that require deep intelligence (esp. mathematical reasoning [1]), Gemini has consistently been the best. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10177
	▲	gregorygoc 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What’s so shitty about it?