Welcome to the MonDive

Today in MonDive, we are comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6 through a practical side-by-side test using the same prompts. We will evaluate how each model performs across various use cases.

We will walk through each step with clear examples so you can replicate the tests quickly. By the end, you will know exactly which model to choose for fast functional builds, and which one delivers stronger design polish and more grounded judgment.

Let’s dive in.

Are you just using AI or really working with AI?

Clawdbot, an AI assistant, is going viral for hiring humans to complete its assigned tasks, while Claude Opus 4.6 is raising the bar, analyzing vast codebases and delivering near-ready financial models.

It’s time for YOU to get smarter with AI so you can utilize it to your advantage!

We Recommend joining Outskill- the world’s first AI learning platform where over 10+ Million Learners have learnt from top industry leaders like Microsoft, NVIDIA and Google.

They are hosting a 2 day LIVE AI Mastermind where you'll build automations, create personalized agents, and learn to turn AI into your ultimate competitive edge.

You will also unlock exclusive bonuses for free when you show up: A Prompt Bible, AI monetization roadmap, and a personalized toolkit builder - for which you would have to pay 1000s of $$ outside.

🧠Live sessions- Saturday and Sunday

🕜10 AM EST to 7PM EST

Register here before they run out of seats. (free for next 72 hours only)

Why This Matters

Choosing between Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not straightforward. Both are capable, but they often produce different quality and style depending on the task.

If you choose the wrong model for the job, you can end up spending extra time refining prompts, fixing outputs, or switching tools to get the result you actually need. That friction adds up quickly, especially when you rely on AI for daily work.

This tutorial reduces the guesswork. By testing both models with the same prompts across practical use cases, you get a clear view of where each one performs best, so you can pick with confidence based on the work you are doing.

Accessing Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6: Interface Setup

Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google AI Studio)

Open Google AI Studio

• Click Try Gemini 3.1 Pro (top right)

• Confirm the model stays on Gemini 3.1 Pro before running prompts

Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Claude)

Open Claude

• Use the model dropdown in the prompt bar

• Select Claude Sonnet 4.6

1. Build a Simple Playable Game

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Paste the prompt in the bottom input bar and click Run

Sample Prompt :

Flappy Bird clone but the pipes are skyscrapers and it's raining - one
HTML file, smooth physics, particle rain

• Produced a playable game on the first try

• Controls felt smooth, and the loop was “game-ready.”

• Output was interactive and fast with less fixing needed

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Paste the same prompt and send

Sample Prompt :

Flappy Bird clone but the pipes are skyscrapers and it's raining - one
HTML file, smooth physics, particle rain

• Graphics and styling looked better overall

• Visual polish felt more designed

• Sometimes the game can feel less smooth to control without tweaks

Winner

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• More playable on the first run

• Needed less adjustment to feel like a real mini game

2. Create a Website From Provided Content

We used the same exact prompt in both models to generate a dopamine-style website for our newsletter. Here’s how the outputs compare.

Sample Prompt:

[content for the website]
With this Create a beautiful website with this content for my ai newsletter Make it beautiful, modern,interesting and dopamine inducing. Use my brand
colours: Orange ff7417 Darker cf5a00 Yellowish ffb40c

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• Very fast to generate a complete first draft

• Structure is clean and usable for quick iteration

• Best when you want speed + a starting layout instantly

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• Output felt more design-forward for a “dopamine” style brief

• Better at making the page feel brand-like, not just “a template”

• Stronger choice when the goal is visual polish + a publish-ready look

Winner

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• For a newsletter brand page, design taste matters more than speed

• Claude is more likely to deliver a polished, premium-looking website with less back-and-forth

3. Build a Single-File PC Builder Simulator App

We used the same prompt in both models to generate a single-file HTML, CSS, JS “PC Builder Simulator” with a drag-and-drop interface. Here’s how the outputs compare.

Sample Prompt:

Create a sophisticated, single-file HTML/CSS/JS 'PC Builder Simulator' application with a modern, dark-themed 'Gaming' aesthetic using Glassmorphism effects. The app should feature a drag-and-drop interface where users assemble a PC from scratch.


Core Requirements:
Layout: A left sidebar for the parts catalog (with scrollable tabs for Motherboard, CPU, RAM, Storage, GPU, PSU) and a central canvas showing a stylized PC case with a motherboard zone and a PSU shroud. A floating HUD in the bottom-right should display the Total Price, Wattage (Current vs Max), and Platform Specs.
Database: Use a JavaScript object containing real-world components (Intel 13/14th Gen, AMD Ryzen 7000, RTX 40-series, etc.) with accurate USA Market Pricing (Dollar $) and wattage specs.


Logic & Interactivity:
Workflow: The Motherboard must be installed first. Once installed, it dynamically renders the correct slots (CPU Socket, 4 RAM slots, M.2 Slot, PCIe Slot) based on its form factor.
Compatibility: Enforce strict compatibility logic (e.g., an Intel CPU cannot go in an AMD socket; DDR4 RAM cannot go in a DDR5 board).
Drag & Drop: When dragging a part, dim the background and highlight only the valid target slots with a neon glow and a floating 'Drop Here' bubble.
Visuals: Installed GPUs should look like physical cards with animated spinning fans. Installed RAM should glow gold.
Removal: Hovering over installed parts should reveal a red 'X' button to uninstall them.
Reset: A button to clear the build and reset the state.

UX/UI Polish:
Use Inter and JetBrains Mono fonts.
Ensure no visual overlap of components.
Include tooltips on hover for installed parts.
Smooth CSS animations for installing parts (pop-in effects) and fan rotations.
Ensure the parts list handles many items gracefully with a custom scrollbar.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• Handled the long spec cleanly without breaking the structure

• Faster to produce a workable first version for testing

• Better when you want a functional prototype, you can iterate on quickly

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• Strong at translating a big spec into a more design-forward UI

• More likely to add polish details like layout, styling, and UX cues

• Great when you want the app to feel more premium visually

Winner

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• More reliable for shipping a functional, interactive prototype fast

• Better starting point when the spec is long and highly technical

4. SVG Visualization

We used the same prompt in both models to generate an interactive SVG style animation (seed → sprout → roots → stem → leaves → full tree). Here’s how the outputs compare.

Sample prompt

 Create an interactive animation showing a seed growing into a full tree. The animation should show: seed sprouting, roots forming, stem emerging, leaves appearing, and the tree reaching full size. Make it visually smooth with natural timing between growth stages.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• Generated a proper tree that matched the brief

• Growth stages felt clearer and more accurate

• Better “SVG style” output that’s easier to reuse on a web page

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• Didn’t form a clean, recognizable tree on the first attempt

• Growth sequence was less faithful to the prompt

• Needed more back and forth to reach the intended result

Winner

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• Followed the animation requirements more precisely

• Produced a more correct SVG visualization with less tweaking

5. Real World Decision Making

We used the same prompt in both models to generate a realistic plan to create a side income stream in 60 days with $2,000.

Sample prompt

“I have $2,000 and want to create a small side income stream within 60 days using AI tools. Give me a step-by-step plan, expected costs, realistic earnings and the biggest risks.”

Gemini 3.1 Pro

• Suggested a higher leverage digital product route (premium AI workflow frameworks)

• Strong on positioning, branding, and marketing strategy

• But it typically needs more time to build traction than 60 days

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• Gave a practical, execution focused plan designed for fast results

• Emphasized a fast-to-market AI-assisted service model

• Included realistic outreach expectations, low startup costs, and clear client retention risks

Winner

Claude Sonnet 4.6

• Better aligned with immediate cash flow within the 60 day window

• More realistic in execution constraints and risk

Final Verdict

Both Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6 feel like a new era in AI the jump in capability is genuinely mind-blowing. But after these 5 tests, the pattern is clear:

Where Gemini 3.1 Pro consistently wins

• App building and interactive prototypes: it shipped more functional, playable outputs faster (games, simulator-style apps, SVG animation correctness).

• Value for money: Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper at $2 per 1M input tokens and $12 per 1M output tokens.

Where Claude Sonnet 4.6 consistently wins

• Graphics, UI polish, and “design taste”: websites and visually refined experiences generally looked more premium and presentation-ready.

• Decision making and judgment-heavy tasks: it consistently excelled in situations requiring solid judgment, political realism, emotional nuance, relationship dynamics, and real-world implementation constraints. Its responses felt grounded and socially aware.

Pricing comparison (your note, confirmed)

• Gemini 3.1 Pro: $2 input / $12 output per 1M tokens

• Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3 input / $15 output per 1M tokens

Know someone who may be interested?