Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head

o3 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro vs o4 Mini

Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.

Winner summary

Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 12 of 30 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge.

Category leads
coding·o3reasoning·o3knowledge·Gemini 2.5 Promath·o4 Minilanguage·o4 Minispeed·o3
Hype vs Reality
o3
#69 by perf·no signal
QUIET
Gemini 2.5 Pro
#61 by perf·no signal
QUIET
o4 Mini
#81 by perf·#13 by attention
DESERVED
Best value
1.8x better value than o3
o3
11.0 pts/$
$5.00/M
Gemini 2.5 Pro
10.0 pts/$
$5.63/M
o4 Mini
19.3 pts/$
$2.75/M
Vendor risk
OpenAI logo
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Medium risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.00T·Tier 1
Low risk
OpenAI logo
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Medium risk
Head to head
o3Gemini 2.5 Proo4 Mini
Aider polyglot
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.8
Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework.
o3
81.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
83.1
o4 Mini
72.0
ARC-AGI
o3 leads by +2.1
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
o3
60.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.0
o4 Mini
58.7
ARC-AGI-2
o3 leads by +0.4
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
o3
6.5
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.9
o4 Mini
6.1
CadEval
o3 leads by +10.0
CadEval · evaluates the ability to generate and reason about Computer-Aided Design code, testing spatial reasoning and engineering knowledge.
o3
74.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
64.0
o4 Mini
62.0
Fiction.LiveBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.8
Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination.
o3
88.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
91.7
o4 Mini
77.8
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
o4 Mini leads by +6.1
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
o3
18.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
14.1
o4 Mini
24.8
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
o4 Mini leads by +2.1
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
o3
2.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
4.2
o4 Mini
6.3
GeoBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +7.0
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
o3
74.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
81.0
o4 Mini
64.0
GPQA diamond
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +4.6
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
o3
75.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
80.4
o4 Mini
72.8
GSO-Bench
o3 leads by +4.9
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
o3
8.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
3.9
o4 Mini
3.6
HELM · GPQA
o3 leads by +0.4
o3
75.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
74.9
o4 Mini
73.5
HELM · IFEval
o4 Mini leads by +6.0
o3
86.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.0
o4 Mini
92.9
HELM · MMLU-Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +0.4
o3
85.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.3
o4 Mini
82.0
HELM · Omni-MATH
o4 Mini leads by +0.6
o3
71.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
41.6
o4 Mini
72.0
HELM · WildBench
o3 leads by +0.4
o3
86.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
85.7
o4 Mini
85.4
HLE
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.4
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%.
o3
16.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
17.7
o4 Mini
13.9
Lech Mazur Writing
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +2.1
Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication.
o3
83.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
86.0
o4 Mini
75.0
MATH level 5
o4 Mini leads by +0.1
MATH Level 5 · the hardest tier of the MATH benchmark, featuring competition-level problems from AMC, AIME, and Olympiad-style mathematics.
o3
97.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
95.6
o4 Mini
97.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +0.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
o3
83.9
Gemini 2.5 Pro
84.7
o4 Mini
81.7
SimpleBench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +11.2
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
o3
43.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.9
o4 Mini
26.4
SimpleQA Verified
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +3.0
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
o3
53.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
56.0
o4 Mini
23.9
VPCT
o4 Mini leads by +8.3
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
o3
28.0
Gemini 2.5 Pro
19.6
o4 Mini
36.3
WeirdML
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +1.5
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
o3
52.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
54.0
o4 Mini
52.6
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
o3 leads by +3.4
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?"
o3
36.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
32.7
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
o3 leads by +6.4
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.
o3
38.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
31.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
o3 leads by +3.7
o3
38.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
34.6
Chess Puzzles
o4 Mini leads by +6.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
20.0
o4 Mini
26.0
DeepResearch Bench
Gemini 2.5 Pro leads by +3.1
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
o3
46.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
49.7
SWE-Bench verified
o3 leads by +4.8
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.
o3
62.3
Gemini 2.5 Pro
57.6
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only)
o3 leads by +13.4
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only) · a curated subset of SWE-bench where models fix real Python repository bugs using only bash commands, no agent frameworks.
o3
58.4
o4 Mini
45.0
Full benchmark table
Benchmarko3Gemini 2.5 Proo4 Mini
Aider polyglot
Aider Polyglot · measures how well AI models can edit code across multiple programming languages using the Aider coding assistant framework.
81.383.172.0
ARC-AGI
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
60.841.058.7
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.
6.54.96.1
CadEval
CadEval · evaluates the ability to generate and reason about Computer-Aided Design code, testing spatial reasoning and engineering knowledge.
74.064.062.0
Fiction.LiveBench
Fiction.LiveBench · a continuously updated benchmark using recently published fiction to test reading comprehension and reasoning, preventing data contamination.
88.991.777.8
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.
18.714.124.8
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.
2.14.26.3
GeoBench
GeoBench · tests geographic knowledge and spatial reasoning across countries, landmarks, coordinates, and geopolitical understanding.
74.081.064.0
GPQA diamond
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
75.880.472.8
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.
8.83.93.6
HELM · GPQA
75.374.973.5
HELM · IFEval
86.984.092.9
HELM · MMLU-Pro
85.986.382.0
HELM · Omni-MATH
71.441.672.0
HELM · WildBench
86.185.785.4
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%.
16.317.713.9
Lech Mazur Writing
Lech Mazur Writing · evaluates creative writing ability, assessing prose quality, narrative coherence, and stylistic sophistication.
83.986.075.0
MATH level 5
MATH Level 5 · the hardest tier of the MATH benchmark, featuring competition-level problems from AMC, AIME, and Olympiad-style mathematics.
97.895.697.8
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
83.984.781.7
SimpleBench
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
43.754.926.4
SimpleQA Verified
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
53.056.023.9
VPCT
VPCT (Visual Pattern Completion Test) · tests visual reasoning and pattern recognition by having models complete visual sequences and transformations.
28.019.636.3
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
52.454.052.6
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?"
36.132.7
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.
38.431.9
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
38.434.6
Chess Puzzles
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
20.026.0
DeepResearch Bench
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
46.649.7
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.
62.357.6
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only)
SWE-Bench Verified (Bash Only) · a curated subset of SWE-bench where models fix real Python repository bugs using only bash commands, no agent frameworks.
58.445.0
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
ModelInputOutputContextProjected $/mo
OpenAI logoo3$2.00$8.00200K tokens (~100 books)$35.00
Google DeepMind logoGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25$10.001.0M tokens (~524 books)$34.38
OpenAI logoo4 Mini$1.10$4.40200K tokens (~100 books)$19.25