Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.3-Codex
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
GPT-5.3-Codex wins on 7/9 benchmarks
GPT-5.3-Codex wins 7 of 9 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · general.
Category leads
speed·GPT-5.3-Codexagentic·GPT-5.3-Codexgeneral·GPT-5.3-Codexknowledge·Gemini 3 Procoding·GPT-5.3-Codex
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Pro
#73 by perf·#3 by attention
GPT-5.3-Codex
#78 by perf·#8 by attention
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.25T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
9 benchmarks · 2 models
Gemini 3 ProGPT-5.3-Codex
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +17.1
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
62.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +13.7
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 Pro
39.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.8
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
GPT-5.3-Codex
32.5
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +13.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
31.7
Metr Time Horizons
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +3.6
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.5
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.4
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
17.8
SWE-Bench verified
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +1.9
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.8
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +9.0
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
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.4
WeirdML
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +9.4
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
GPT-5.3-Codex
79.3
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GPT-5.3-Codex |
|---|---|---|
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 | 62.2 |
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 | 53.1 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 41.3 | 32.5 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 18.4 | 31.7 |
Metr Time Horizons | 71.0 | 74.5 |
PostTrainBench | 18.1 | 17.8 |
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 | 74.8 |
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 | 78.4 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 69.9 | 79.3 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | — | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 |