Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools vs RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools (2026) and RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B (2025) are general-purpose language models from Google DeepMind and RWKV Project. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools ships a 1m-token context window, while RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B ships a Infinite-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is safer overall; choose RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | long-context analysis | general production evaluation |
| Decision fit | RAG, Long context, and Classification | Long context |
| Context window | 1m | Infinite |
| Cheapest output | $12/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools for RAG, Long context, and Classification.
- RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools
$4,600
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools and RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-01-01 | 2025-03-18 |
| Context window | 1m | Infinite |
| Parameters | — | 2.9B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Unknown | Apache 2.0 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $2/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $12/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on structured outputs: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has $2/1M input tokens and RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B open source?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is listed under Unknown. RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for structured outputs, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools or RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools and RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is available on OpenRouter. RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools over RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools is safer overall; choose RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-25. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.