Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Flash Preview vs Grok 4 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Flash Preview wins on 19/31 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Flash Preview wins 19 of 31 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · math · coding.
Category leads
reasoning·Gemini 2.5 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Flash Previewmath·Gemini 3 Flash Previewcoding·Gemini 3 Flash Previewspeed·Gemini 3 Flash Previewagentic·Gemini 3 Flash Previewarena·Gemini 3 Flash Previewlanguage·Grok 4
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
#98 by perf·no signal
Grok 4
#73 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/$
$1.75/M
Grok 4
6.1 pts/$
$9.00/M
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
xAI
$250.0B·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Head to head
31 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGrok 4Gemini 2.5 Pro
ARC-AGI
Grok 4 leads by +25.7
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
Grok 4
66.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +17.6
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
Grok 4
16.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Balrog
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +4.5
Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
48.1
Grok 4
43.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
43.3
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +10.0
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
Grok 4
28.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
20.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +16.0
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
Grok 4
19.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
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.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
4.2
Grok 4
2.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +7.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
88.0
Grok 4
45.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
GPQA diamond
Grok 4 leads by +2.3
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
Grok 4
82.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +8.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
92.8
Grok 4
84.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
SimpleBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.6
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
53.3
Grok 4
52.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +11.4
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
Grok 4
47.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +31.7
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
Grok 4
27.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.6
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +7.6
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
61.6
Grok 4
45.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +17.0
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 2.5 Pro
32.7
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +10.7
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 2.5 Pro
31.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +11.8
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
46.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
34.6
Aider polyglot
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +3.5
Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework.
Grok 4
79.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
83.1
APEX-Agents
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +8.8
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
Grok 4
15.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +234.5
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1436.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1202.0
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +25.7
Gemini 3 Flash Preview
1473.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1448.2
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.8
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Grok 4
47.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
49.7
Fiction.LiveBench
Grok 4 leads by +2.7
Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination.
Grok 4
94.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
91.7
GSO-Bench
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +5.9
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 2.5 Pro
3.9
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.3
Grok 4
72.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
HELM · IFEval
Grok 4 leads by +10.9
Grok 4
94.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.2
Grok 4
85.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
Grok 4 leads by +18.7
Grok 4
60.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +6.0
Grok 4
79.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
Lech Mazur Writing
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +5.3
Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication.
Grok 4
80.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.0
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +17.8
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 2.5 Pro
57.6
VPCT
Gemini 3 Flash Preview leads by +39.3
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 2.5 Pro
19.6
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Flash Preview | Grok 4 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 21.5 | 66.7 | 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 | 16.0 | 4.9 |
Balrog Balrog · benchmarks AI agents on text-based adventure games, testing language understanding, strategic planning, and long-horizon reasoning. | 48.1 | 43.6 | 43.3 |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 38.0 | 28.0 | 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 | 19.7 | 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 | 2.1 | 4.2 |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 88.0 | 45.0 | 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 | 82.7 | 80.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 92.8 | 84.0 | 84.7 |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 53.3 | 52.6 | 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 | 47.9 | 56.0 |
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 | 27.2 | 32.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 61.6 | 45.7 | 54.0 |
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 | — | 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 | — | 31.9 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 46.4 | — | 34.6 |
Aider polyglot Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework. | — | 79.6 | 83.1 |
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 | 15.2 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1436.4 | — | 1202.0 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1473.9 | — | 1448.2 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | — | 47.9 | 49.7 |
Fiction.LiveBench Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination. | — | 94.4 | 91.7 |
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 | — | 3.9 |
HELM · GPQA | — | 72.6 | 74.9 |
HELM · IFEval | — | 94.9 | 84.0 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1 | 86.3 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | — | 60.3 | 41.6 |
HELM · WildBench | — | 79.7 | 85.7 |
Lech Mazur Writing Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication. | — | 80.7 | 86.0 |
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 | — | 57.6 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 58.9 | — | 19.6 |
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 | |
| $3.00 | $15.00 | 256K tokens (~128 books) | $60.00 | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 1.0M tokens (~524 books) | $34.38 |