Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs Hy4 previewWhich Is Better in 2026?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs Hy4 preview: which should you choose in 2026?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools (by Google) and Hy4 preview (by Tencent) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools if…
- • you need image inputs
Choose Hy4 preview if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Tencent | |
| API provider | Tencent | |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 65,536 tokens | 64,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Feb 25, 2026 | Aug 28, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Audio, Image, Video, File | Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $2.00 | $0.834 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $12.00 | $2.50 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 28, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools from Google with Hy4 preview from Tencent? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | Hy4 preview | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs Hy4 preview FAQ
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or Hy4 preview?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools and Hy4 preview?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Muse Spark 1.2
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 is a reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex agentic tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta, built for agentic tasks.
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5 is a native omnimodal model by Xiaomi.
Nova 2 Lite
Amazon
Nova 2 Lite is a fast, cost-effective reasoning model for everyday workloads that can process text, images, and videos to generate text.
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Flash is a multimodal reasoning model from Alibaba.
More Hy4 preview comparisons
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Flash is a multimodal reasoning model from Alibaba.
GLM 5.3 Flash
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-Flash is a native multimodal model from Z.ai.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
GLM 5.3
Z.AI
GLM-5.3 is a large-scale reasoning model from Z.ai, built for complex software engineering and long-horizon agent tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.