Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Flash Preview vs Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 18/28 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 18 of 28 shared benchmarks. Leads in reasoning · arena · knowledge.
Category leads
speed·Gemini 3 Flash Previewreasoning·Gemini 3 Proarena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Proagentic·Gemini 3 Flash Previewlanguage·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
#98 by perf·no signal
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#61 by perf·no signal
Best value
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
2.8x better value than Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
28.1 pts/$
$1.75/M
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Head to head
28 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGemini 3 ProGemini 2.5 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 3 Flash Preview
49.7
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.7
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
Gemini 2.5 Pro
31.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +5.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
46.4
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
34.6
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 3 Flash Preview
21.5
Gemini 3 Pro
75.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
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 3 Flash Preview
33.6
Gemini 3 Pro
31.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.1
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1436.4
Gemini 3 Pro
1437.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1202.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.3
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1473.9
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1448.2
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +7.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
38.0
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
20.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +2.0
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
37.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
14.1
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.6
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
18.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
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
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
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 3 Flash Preview
77.6
Gemini 3 Pro
90.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
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 3 Flash Preview
9.8
Gemini 3 Pro
18.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
3.9
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +1.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
92.8
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
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 3 Flash Preview
53.3
Gemini 3 Pro
71.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.5
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
67.4
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
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 3 Flash Preview
75.4
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
57.6
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.1
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
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.6
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 3 Flash Preview
58.9
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.6
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 3 Flash Preview
61.6
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
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 3 Flash Preview
24.0
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
Balrog
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.8
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 2.5 Pro
43.3
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +5.4
Gemini 3 Pro
80.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
HELM · IFEval
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.6
Gemini 3 Pro
87.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.0
Gemini 3 Pro
90.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +14.0
Gemini 3 Pro
55.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.2
Gemini 3 Pro
85.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
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 3 Pro
34.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
17.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash Preview | Gemini 3 Pro | Gemini 2.5 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?" | 49.7 | 45.0 | 32.7 |
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 | 31.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.4 | 41.3 | 34.6 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 21.5 | 75.0 | 41.0 |
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. | 33.6 | 31.1 | 4.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1436.4 | 1437.6 | 1202.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1473.9 | 1486.2 | 1448.2 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 38.0 | 31.0 | 20.0 |
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 | 37.6 | 14.1 |
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 | 18.8 | 4.2 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 88.0 | 84.0 | 81.0 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 77.6 | 90.2 | 80.4 |
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 | 3.9 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 92.8 | 91.4 | 84.7 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 53.3 | 71.7 | 54.9 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 67.4 | 72.9 | 56.0 |
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 | 57.6 |
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 | 32.6 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 58.9 | 86.5 | 19.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 61.6 | 69.9 | 54.0 |
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 | — |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 48.1 | — | 43.3 |
HELM · GPQA | — | 80.3 | 74.9 |
HELM · IFEval | — | 87.6 | 84.0 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | — | 90.3 | 86.3 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | — | 55.6 | 41.6 |
HELM · WildBench | — | 85.9 | 85.7 |
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 | 17.7 |
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 | |
| — | — | — | — | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $34.38 |