Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3 Flash Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 22/37 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 22 of 37 shared benchmarks. Leads in arena · knowledge · math.
Category leads
speed·Gemini 3 Flash Previewagentic·Gemini 3 Flash Previewreasoning·Gemini 3 Flash Previewarena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Progeneral·Gemini 3 Prolanguage·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#116 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
#125 by perf·#6 by attention
Gemini 3 Pro
#71 by perf·#6 by attention
Best value
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
3.1x better value than Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro
9.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
28.3 pts/$
$1.75/M
Gemini 3 Pro
n/a
no price
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Head to head
37 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 2.5 ProGemini 3 Flash PreviewGemini 3 Pro
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 2.5 Pro
32.7
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 2.5 Pro
31.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
42.6
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +5.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
27.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
46.4
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +5.6
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
6.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
24.0
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +9.7
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
84.7
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +2.5
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
33.6
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1227.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1438.9
Gemini 3 Pro
1439.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1445.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1472.7
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.5
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 2.5 Pro
43.3
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
48.1
Gemini 3 Pro
58.1
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Flash Preview 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 2.5 Pro
15.8
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
36.9
Gemini 3 Pro
27.4
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 2.5 Pro
42.8
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
49.8
Gemini 3 Pro
46.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +30.3
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
14.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
35.6
Gemini 3 Pro
66.0
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +27.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
4.2
Gemini 3 Pro
31.3
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
88.0
Gemini 3 Pro
84.0
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.3
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
85.9
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3 Pro 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 2.5 Pro
3.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
9.8
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
95.5
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
SimpleBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +16.8
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
53.3
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
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 2.5 Pro
56.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
66.8
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +2.5
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 2.5 Pro
57.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
75.4
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.2
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 2.5 Pro
32.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
64.3
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +27.6
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
58.9
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
61.6
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Dtbench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +11.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
70.7
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
81.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +17.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
0.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
17.1
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +26.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
24.6
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
51.2
Gdpval
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +17.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
23.3
Gemini 3 Pro
40.3
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
Gemini 3 Pro
80.3
HELM · IFEval
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
Gemini 3 Pro
87.6
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
Gemini 3 Pro
90.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
Gemini 3 Pro
55.6
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
Gemini 3 Pro
85.9
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +16.7
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 2.5 Pro
17.7
Gemini 3 Pro
34.4
Lmca
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +9.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
40.9
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
50.7
Metr Time Horizons
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +15.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
55.4
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
Proofbench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.0
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
15.0
Gemini 3 Pro
20.0
Remote Labor Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
0.8
Gemini 3 Pro
1.3
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemini 3 Flash Preview | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
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?" | 32.7 | 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. | 31.9 | 42.6 | 39.4 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 27.0 | 46.4 | 41.3 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 6.6 | 24.0 | 18.4 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 41.0 | 84.7 | 75.0 |
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. | 4.9 | 33.6 | 31.1 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1227.0 | 1438.9 | 1439.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1445.6 | 1472.7 | 1485.5 |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 43.3 | 48.1 | 58.1 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 15.8 | 36.9 | 27.4 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 42.8 | 49.8 | 46.3 |
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. | 14.1 | 35.6 | 66.0 |
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 | 4.2 | 31.3 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 81.0 | 88.0 | 84.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 80.4 | 85.9 | 90.2 |
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. | 3.9 | 9.8 | 18.6 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 84.7 | 95.5 | 91.4 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 54.9 | 53.3 | 71.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 56.0 | 66.8 | 72.9 |
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. | 57.6 | 75.4 | 72.9 |
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. | 32.6 | 64.3 | 69.4 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 19.6 | 58.9 | 86.5 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 54.0 | 61.6 | 69.9 |
Dtbench | 70.7 | 81.8 | — |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 0.0 | 17.1 | — |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 24.6 | 51.2 | — |
Gdpval | 23.3 | — | 40.3 |
HELM · GPQA | 74.9 | — | 80.3 |
HELM · IFEval | 84.0 | — | 87.6 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | 86.3 | — | 90.3 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | 41.6 | — | 55.6 |
HELM · WildBench | 85.7 | — | 85.9 |
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%. | 17.7 | — | 34.4 |
Lmca | 40.9 | 50.7 | — |
Metr Time Horizons | 55.4 | — | 71.0 |
Proofbench | — | 15.0 | 20.0 |
Remote Labor Index | 0.8 | — | 1.3 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $34.38 | |
| $0.50 | $3.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $11.25 | |
| — | — | — | — |