Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro

Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.

Winner summary

Gemini 3 Pro wins 32 of 32 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · reasoning.

Category leads
speed·Gemini 3 Proagentic·Gemini 3 Proreasoning·Gemini 3 Proarena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Progeneral·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Prolanguage·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#116 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Gemini 3 Pro
#71 by perf·#6 by attention
DESERVED
Best value
Gemini 2.5 Pro
9.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Gemini 3 Pro
n/a
no price
Vendor risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Low risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.20T·Tier 1
Low risk
Head to head
Gemini 2.5 ProGemini 3 Pro
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.4
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 Pro
45.0
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +7.4
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 Pro
39.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
27.0
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +11.8
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 Pro
18.4
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +34.0
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 Pro
75.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +26.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +212.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1227.0
Gemini 3 Pro
1439.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +39.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1445.6
Gemini 3 Pro
1485.5
Balrog
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.8
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 Pro
58.1
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +11.6
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 Pro
27.4
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 3 Pro 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 Pro
46.3
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +51.8
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 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 Pro
31.3
Gdpval
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +17.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
23.3
Gemini 3 Pro
40.3
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
Gemini 3 Pro
84.0
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +9.8
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 Pro
90.2
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.7
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 Pro
18.6
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
Metr Time Horizons
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +15.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
55.4
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
Remote Labor Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
0.8
Gemini 3 Pro
1.3
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 Pro
71.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +16.9
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 Pro
72.9
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +15.4
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 Pro
72.9
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +36.8
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 Pro
69.4
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +66.9
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 Pro
86.5
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +15.9
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 Pro
69.9
Full benchmark table
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGemini 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?"
32.745.0
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.
31.939.4
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
27.041.3
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
6.618.4
ARC-AGI
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
41.075.0
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.
4.931.1
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
1227.01439.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
1445.61485.5
Balrog
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
43.358.1
Chess Puzzles
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
15.827.4
DeepResearch Bench
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
42.846.3
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.
14.166.0
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.
4.231.3
Gdpval
23.340.3
GeoBench
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
81.084.0
GPQA diamond
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
80.490.2
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.
3.918.6
HELM · GPQA
74.980.3
HELM · IFEval
84.087.6
HELM · MMLU-Pro
86.390.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
41.655.6
HELM · WildBench
85.785.9
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%.
17.734.4
Metr Time Horizons
55.471.0
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
84.791.4
Remote Labor Index
0.81.3
SimpleBench
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
54.971.7
SimpleQA Verified
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
56.072.9
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.
57.672.9
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.
32.669.4
VPCT
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
19.686.5
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
54.069.9
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
ModelInputOutputContextProjected $/mo
Google DeepMind logoGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25$10.001.0M tokens (~524 books)$34.38
Google DeepMind logoGemini 3 Pro————