Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5 Chat
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 25/27 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 25 of 27 shared benchmarks. Leads in arena · knowledge · language.
Category leads
arena·Gemini 3 Proknowledge·Gemini 3 Prolanguage·Gemini 3 Promath·Gemini 3 Proreasoning·Gemini 3 Prospeed·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#61 by perf·no signal
GPT-5 Chat
#3 by perf·#1 by attention
Best value
GPT-5 Chat
1.5x better value than Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
GPT-5 Chat
14.6 pts/$
$5.63/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
27 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3 ProGemini 2.5 ProGPT-5 Chat
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +38.0
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1448.2
GPT-5 Chat
1426.0
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.2
Gemini 3 Pro
80.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
GPT-5 Chat
79.1
HELM · IFEval
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.1
Gemini 3 Pro
87.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
GPT-5 Chat
87.5
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.0
Gemini 3 Pro
90.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
GPT-5 Chat
86.3
HELM · Omni-MATH
GPT-5 Chat leads by +9.1
Gemini 3 Pro
55.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
GPT-5 Chat
64.7
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.2
Gemini 3 Pro
85.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
GPT-5 Chat
85.7
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 3 Pro
45.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.7
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 3 Pro
39.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
31.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +6.7
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
34.6
Aider polyglot
GPT-5 Chat leads by +4.9
Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
83.1
GPT-5 Chat
88.0
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 Pro
75.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
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 3 Pro
31.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +235.6
Gemini 3 Pro
1437.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
1202.0
Chess Puzzles
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +11.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 3 Pro
31.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
20.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +23.5
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
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 Pro
18.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
GeoBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +3.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
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 Pro
90.2
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
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 3 Pro
18.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
3.9
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 3 Pro
34.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
17.7
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 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 Pro
71.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
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 3 Pro
72.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
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 3 Pro
72.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
57.6
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 3 Pro
69.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.6
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 3 Pro
86.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.6
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 3 Pro
69.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5 Chat |
|---|---|---|---|
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1486.2 | 1448.2 | 1426.0 |
HELM · GPQA | 80.3 | 74.9 | 79.1 |
HELM · IFEval | 87.6 | 84.0 | 87.5 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | 90.3 | 86.3 | 86.3 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | 55.6 | 41.6 | 64.7 |
HELM · WildBench | 85.9 | 85.7 | 85.7 |
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?" | 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. | 39.4 | 31.9 | — |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 41.3 | 34.6 | — |
Aider polyglot Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework. | — | 83.1 | 88.0 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 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. | 31.1 | 4.9 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1437.6 | 1202.0 | — |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 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. | 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. | 18.8 | 4.2 | — |
GeoBench GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding. | 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. | 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. | 18.6 | 3.9 | — |
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%. | 34.4 | 17.7 | — |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 91.4 | 84.7 | — |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 69.4 | 32.6 | — |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 86.5 | 19.6 | — |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 69.9 | 54.0 | — |
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 | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 128K tokens (~64 books) | $34.38 |