Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs GPT-5.2
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 1 category and GPT-5.2 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 leads 50.1 to 21.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 91.4% for GPT-5.2.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 54.1 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-12-11 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 400K |
| Max output | — | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.75 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $14 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 67 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182), GPT-5.2: 52.2 (#32)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 73.8% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1415 |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 66.7% |
| GSO | — | 27.4% |
| WeirdML | — | 72.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1447 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,294 |
| AlgoTune | — | 2.05 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GPT-5.2: 40.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 64.9% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 55.9% |
| GDPval | — | 49.7% |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 2.5% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 83% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 32.2% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 81.6% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 89.7% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 41.1% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1207 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 75.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 3,591 |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), GPT-5.2: 50.1 (#33)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | 10.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 153.45 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 52.9% |
| SimpleBench | — | 45.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 83.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 86.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 49% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 23% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1445 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 23% |
| DTBench | — | 90.9% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 43.9% |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.1 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), GPT-5.2: 59.8 (#32)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 67.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 31.7% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 72% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 96.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 15% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1439 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 40.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 18.8% |
Knowledge GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), GPT-5.2: 59.2 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 91.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 27.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 37.1% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 8.4% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1445 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GPT-5.2: 50.9 (#7)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1268 |
| VPCT | — | 84% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 38.3% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1405 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GPT-5.2: 53.6 (#63)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1425 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1460 |
| LMArena French | — | 1456 |
| LMArena German | — | 1448 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1440 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1433 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), GPT-5.2: 74.9 (#83)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1417 |
Long Context GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 18.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1428 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.2 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), GPT-5.2: 67.0 (#30)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1402 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1703 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1458 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than GPT-5.2?
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or GPT-5.2 better for coding?
GPT-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and GPT-5.2 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 has 67.