Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.2 Vision: which model should you choose?

We compared Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5.2 Vision on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. GPT-5.2 Vision has the stronger average benchmark score; Gemini 3 Pro is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Google DeepMind

Gemini 3 Pro

Gemini 3 Pro is a frontier model from Google DeepMind. It offers a 2,000,000-token context window, costs $18.24 per million input tokens and $82.93 per million output tokens, and averages 86.1 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$18.24 / 1M
Output
$82.93 / 1M
Context
2,000,000
Avg score
86.1
Open weights
No
Full Gemini 3 Pro page
OpenAI

GPT-5.2 Vision

GPT-5.2 Vision is a frontier model from OpenAI. It offers a 1,000,000-token context window, costs $19.03 per million input tokens and $85.72 per million output tokens, and averages 87.4 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$19.03 / 1M
Output
$85.72 / 1M
Context
1,000,000
Avg score
87.4
Open weights
No
Full GPT-5.2 Vision page

Specification comparison

SpecGemini 3 ProGPT-5.2 VisionEdge
Input price / 1M$18.24$19.03A
Output price / 1M$82.93$85.72A
Context window2,000,0001,000,000A
Max output8,19216,384B
Average score86.187.4B
Arena Elo1460.71484.3B
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Gemini 3 Pro wins 2, GPT-5.2 Vision wins 10, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkGemini 3 ProGPT-5.2 VisionGapWinner
MMLU-Pro88.289.51.3GPT-5.2 Vision
GPQA Diamond79.082.13.1GPT-5.2 Vision
SWE-bench Verified78.578.80.3GPT-5.2 Vision
HumanEval91.891.20.6Gemini 3 Pro
MATH-50089.992.93.0GPT-5.2 Vision
AIME 202584.385.71.4GPT-5.2 Vision
LiveCodeBench83.383.40.1GPT-5.2 Vision
IFEval93.793.90.2GPT-5.2 Vision
TruthfulQA88.885.33.5Gemini 3 Pro
HellaSwag91.394.63.3GPT-5.2 Vision
MMMU78.684.45.8GPT-5.2 Vision
Arena Elo1460.71484.323.6GPT-5.2 Vision

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Gemini 3 Pro costs about $34.41 per million tokens and GPT-5.2 Vision costs about $35.70. Gemini 3 Pro is roughly 4% cheaper than GPT-5.2 Vision. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger context window at 2,000,000 tokens, compared with 1,000,000 for GPT-5.2 Vision. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Gemini 3 Pro wins 2, GPT-5.2 Vision wins 10, and 0 are tied. On the index average, GPT-5.2 Vision leads Gemini 3 Pro by 1.3 points (87.4 versus 86.1).

The price picture favours Gemini 3 Pro. The context picture favours Gemini 3 Pro. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with GPT-5.2 Vision for quality-sensitive work and Gemini 3 Pro for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Choose Gemini 3 Pro if

  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 2,000,000-token context window.

Choose GPT-5.2 Vision if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • You need the larger 16,384-token output limit.

FAQ

Is Gemini 3 Pro better than GPT-5.2 Vision?

On the index average, GPT-5.2 Vision leads Gemini 3 Pro by 1.3 points (87.4 versus 86.1). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Gemini 3 Pro wins 2 benchmarks, GPT-5.2 Vision wins 10.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3 Pro or GPT-5.2 Vision?

Gemini 3 Pro is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $34.41 per million tokens, versus $35.70 for GPT-5.2 Vision.

Which has the larger context window?

Gemini 3 Pro has the larger context window at 2,000,000 tokens. GPT-5.2 Vision has 1,000,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

Gemini 3 Pro is proprietary; GPT-5.2 Vision is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with GPT-5.2 Vision for quality-sensitive work and Gemini 3 Pro for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Related comparisons