Gemini 3.1 Flash wins on coding (68 vs 54) and writing quality and context window (1M vs 512K). For most workflows, Gemini 3.1 Flash is the stronger default — best cheap ai for broad day-to-day work — now with 1m context.
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
Google / Budget / Apr 29, 2026
Best cheap AI for broad day-to-day work — now with 1M context.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need premium reasoning depth or the highest coding benchmark scores.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
1M token context window at $0.50/$3 per million tokens
2.5× faster time-to-first-token than Gemini 2.5 Flash
Strong multimodal support across text, images, audio, and video
Not as sharp as premium models on hard reasoning or complex coding
May need more validation on nuanced technical tasks
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Gemini 3.1 Flash wins on more categories — budget, writing, images. Llama 4 Scout is the better pick when affordable self-hosted long-context workflows and analysis pipelines. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
Both models are similarly priced at $0.5/1M input tokens. The decision should come down to capability, not cost.
Gemini 3.1 Flash has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs Llama 4 Scout's 512K. For large document analysis, Gemini 3.1 Flash is the stronger pick.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is better for coding with a score of 68 vs Llama 4 Scout's 54. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.
Gemini 3.1 Flash is faster with a very fast speed rating (score: 5) vs Llama 4 Scout's fast rating (score: 4).
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
Llama 4 Scout is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
Gemini 3.1 Flash leads on coding with a score of 68 vs 54 for Llama 4 Scout.
Gemini 3.1 Flash has the larger context window: 1M vs 512K for Llama 4 Scout.
Both models are similarly priced — the decision comes down to capability, not cost.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Flash for budget and writing — high-volume everyday ai usage where speed and cost both matter.
Choose Llama 4 Scout when affordable self-hosted long-context workflows and analysis pipelines.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
