Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5 Chat vs GPT-5 Mini
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Gemini 3 Pro wins on 16/18 benchmarks
Gemini 3 Pro wins 16 of 18 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · math · reasoning.
Category leads
knowledge·Gemini 3 Prolanguage·GPT-5 Minimath·Gemini 3 Proreasoning·Gemini 3 Proarena·Gemini 3 Procoding·Gemini 3 Pro
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Gemini 3 Pro
#40 by perf·no signal
GPT-5 Chat
#3 by perf·#1 by attention
GPT-5 Mini
#65 by perf·no signal
Best value
GPT-5 Mini
3.4x better value than GPT-5 Chat
Gemini 3 Pro
—
no price
GPT-5 Chat
14.6 pts/$
$5.63/M
GPT-5 Mini
49.8 pts/$
$1.13/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
18 benchmarks · 3 models
Gemini 3 ProGPT-5 ChatGPT-5 Mini
HELM · GPQA
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +1.2
Gemini 3 Pro
80.3
GPT-5 Chat
79.1
GPT-5 Mini
75.6
HELM · IFEval
GPT-5 Mini leads by +5.1
Gemini 3 Pro
87.6
GPT-5 Chat
87.5
GPT-5 Mini
92.7
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.0
Gemini 3 Pro
90.3
GPT-5 Chat
86.3
GPT-5 Mini
83.5
HELM · Omni-MATH
GPT-5 Mini leads by +7.5
Gemini 3 Pro
55.6
GPT-5 Chat
64.7
GPT-5 Mini
72.2
HELM · WildBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.2
Gemini 3 Pro
85.9
GPT-5 Chat
85.7
GPT-5 Mini
85.5
ARC-AGI
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +20.7
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
GPT-5 Mini
54.3
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +26.7
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
GPT-5 Mini
4.4
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +60.1
Gemini 3 Pro
1486.2
GPT-5 Chat
1426.0
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +10.4
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
GPT-5 Mini
27.2
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +12.5
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
GPT-5 Mini
6.3
GPQA diamond
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +23.5
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
GPT-5 Mini
66.7
HLE
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +19.0
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
GPT-5 Mini
15.4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +4.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Gemini 3 Pro
91.4
GPT-5 Mini
86.7
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +51.9
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
GPT-5 Mini
21.0
SWE-Bench verified
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.3
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 Mini
64.7
Terminal Bench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +34.6
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 Mini
34.8
VPCT
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +76.2
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
Gemini 3 Pro
86.5
GPT-5 Mini
10.3
WeirdML
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +17.3
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 Mini
52.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Gemini 3 Pro | GPT-5 Chat | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|---|
HELM · GPQA | 80.3 | 79.1 | 75.6 |
HELM · IFEval | 87.6 | 87.5 | 92.7 |
HELM · MMLU-Pro | 90.3 | 86.3 | 83.5 |
HELM · Omni-MATH | 55.6 | 64.7 | 72.2 |
HELM · WildBench | 85.9 | 85.7 | 85.5 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 75.0 | — | 54.3 |
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 | — | 4.4 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1486.2 | 1426.0 | — |
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 | — | 27.2 |
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 | — | 6.3 |
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 | — | 66.7 |
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 | — | 15.4 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 91.4 | — | 86.7 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 72.9 | — | 21.0 |
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 | — | 64.7 |
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 | — | 34.8 |
VPCT VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations. | 86.5 | — | 10.3 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 69.9 | — | 52.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | — | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 128K tokens (~64 books) | $34.38 | |
| $0.25 | $2.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $6.88 |