Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Flash Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.2
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.2 wins on 16/35 benchmarks
GPT-5.2 wins 16 of 35 shared benchmarks. Leads in agentic · reasoning · math.
Category leads
agentic·GPT-5.2reasoning·GPT-5.2arena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·GPT-5.2coding·GPT-5.2general·GPT-5.2speed·Gemini 3 Flash Preview
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
#125 by perf·#5 by attention
Gemini 3 Pro
#71 by perf·#5 by attention
GPT-5.2
#147 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
4.8x better value than GPT-5.2
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
28.3 pts/$
$1.75/M
Gemini 3 Pro
n/a
no price
GPT-5.2
6.0 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
35 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGemini 3 ProGPT-5.2
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.2 leads by +10.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
24.0
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
GPT-5.2
34.3
ARC-AGI
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.5
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
84.7
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
GPT-5.2
86.2
ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.2 leads by +19.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
33.6
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
GPT-5.2
52.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1438.9
Gemini 3 Pro
1439.0
GPT-5.2
1415.5
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.7
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1472.7
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.5
GPT-5.2
1435.6
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5.2 leads by +9.5
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
36.9
Gemini 3 Pro
27.4
GPT-5.2
46.3
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +3.5
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
49.8
Gemini 3 Pro
46.3
GPT-5.2
41.1
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +25.3
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
35.6
Gemini 3 Pro
66.0
GPT-5.2
40.7
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.4
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
4.2
Gemini 3 Pro
31.3
GPT-5.2
18.8
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.6
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
85.9
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
GPT-5.2
88.5
GSO-Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +8.8
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
9.8
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
GPT-5.2
27.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
GPT-5.2 leads by +0.6
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
95.5
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
GPT-5.2
96.1
Proofbench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
15.0
Gemini 3 Pro
20.0
GPT-5.2
15.0
SimpleBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +18.4
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
53.3
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
GPT-5.2
35.0
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.1
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
66.8
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
GPT-5.2
37.1
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +1.6
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
75.4
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
GPT-5.2
73.8
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.5
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
64.3
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
GPT-5.2
64.9
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +10.5
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
58.9
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
GPT-5.2
76.0
WeirdML
GPT-5.2 leads by +2.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
61.6
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
GPT-5.2
72.2
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.6
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
49.7
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +3.3
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
42.6
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +5.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
46.4
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
Balrog
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +10.0
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
48.1
Gemini 3 Pro
58.1
Cl Bench
GPT-5.2 leads by +2.4
Gemini 3 Pro
15.8
GPT-5.2
18.2
Dtbench
GPT-5.2 leads by +3.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
81.8
GPT-5.2
84.9
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +14.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
17.1
GPT-5.2
31.7
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
GPT-5.2 leads by +16.2
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
51.2
GPT-5.2
67.4
Gdpval
GPT-5.2 leads by +9.4
Gemini 3 Pro
40.3
GPT-5.2
49.7
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
88.0
Gemini 3 Pro
84.0
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +10.2
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
GPT-5.2
24.2
Lmca
GPT-5.2 leads by +0.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
50.7
GPT-5.2
51.7
Metr Time Horizons
GPT-5.2 leads by +4.3
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
GPT-5.2
75.3
Mystery Game Puzzles
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +3.3
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
18.5
GPT-5.2
15.2
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.2 leads by +3.3
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
GPT-5.2
21.4
Remote Labor Index
GPT-5.2 leads by +1.3
Gemini 3 Pro
1.3
GPT-5.2
2.5
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash Preview | Gemini 3 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 24.0 | 18.4 | 34.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 84.7 | 75.0 | 86.2 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 33.6 | 31.1 | 52.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1438.9 | 1439.0 | 1415.5 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1472.7 | 1485.5 | 1435.6 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 36.9 | 27.4 | 46.3 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 49.8 | 46.3 | 41.1 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 35.6 | 66.0 | 40.7 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 4.2 | 31.3 | 18.8 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 85.9 | 90.2 | 88.5 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 9.8 | 18.6 | 27.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 95.5 | 91.4 | 96.1 |
Proofbench | 15.0 | 20.0 | 15.0 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 53.3 | 71.7 | 35.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 66.8 | 72.9 | 37.1 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 75.4 | 72.9 | 73.8 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 64.3 | 69.4 | 64.9 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 58.9 | 86.5 | 76.0 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 61.6 | 69.9 | 72.2 |
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 49.7 | 45.0 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 42.6 | 39.4 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.4 | 41.3 | — |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 48.1 | 58.1 | — |
Cl Bench | — | 15.8 | 18.2 |
Dtbench | 81.8 | — | 84.9 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 17.1 | — | 31.7 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 51.2 | — | 67.4 |
Gdpval | — | 40.3 | 49.7 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 88.0 | 84.0 | — |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | — | 34.4 | 24.2 |
Lmca | 50.7 | — | 51.7 |
Metr Time Horizons | — | 71.0 | 75.3 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 18.5 | — | 15.2 |
PostTrainBench | — | 18.1 | 21.4 |
Remote Labor Index | — | 1.3 | 2.5 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0.50 | $3.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $11.25 | |
| — | — | — | — | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 |