Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.2

GPT-5.2 leads Gemini 2.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 30.4 to 15.5, and Gemini 2.5 Flash costs 5.6x less per output token ($2.50 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 71 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 2.5 Flash Replace GPT-5.2
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
34.3
Output $/M
$2.50
16
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
55
vs boards won of 71 shared

Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.2: which to pick

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($2.50 vs $14.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.466 against $1.91).

Model AGemini 2.5 FlashGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmark$0.466 per solved taskModel BGPT-5.2OpenAI55.9/1003 independent benchmarks$1.91 per solved task
Shared results
71
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
2
GPT-5.2 only
43
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Flash not benchmarked, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 25.0 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 2.5 Flash 31.6% against GPT-5.2 84.8%, 53.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash $2.50 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 5.6x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.2 400K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 FlashBarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding06
Intelligence02
Agentic work12
Reasoning011
Math04
Knowledge34
Web design07
General1219
All shared boards1655
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
SWE-bench Verified28.7%72.8%GPT-5.2
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1417Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured85.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%89.4%GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)13.6%47.0%GPT-5.2
Terminal-Bench17.1%64.9%GPT-5.2
GSO-BenchNot measured27.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured72.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1293.5Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding14231442GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT14251434GPT-5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index15.530.4GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index142.9153.7GPT-5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1043Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1093Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1058Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%84.8%GPT-5.2
METR time horizonsNot measured75.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPvalNot measured49.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
BALROG33.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2$549$3,591GPT-5.2
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)56.2%55.9%Gemini 2.5 Flash
BrowseComp-Plus39.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured91.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured86.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.0%90.3%GPT-5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.1%37.7%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured91.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ARC-AGI33.3%86.2%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI-22.5%52.9%GPT-5.2
SimpleBench41.2%45.8%GPT-5.2
Chess puzzlesNot measured48.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
EBR-benchNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
VPCTNot measured84.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14221428GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: expert14261445GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14201431GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: diagrams12451265GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: homework12441276GPT-5.2
Kagi LLM Benchmark56.8%73.3%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
AIMENot measured96.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
AA Math Index73.399.0GPT-5.2
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.3%99.0%GPT-5.2
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured96.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured67.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured31.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: math14111440GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work14221442GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured66.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured65.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)40.4%49.8%GPT-5.2
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.2%87.4%GPT-5.2
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured37.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: science14331425Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14281425Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government14301427Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance14041414GPT-5.2
FACTS Benchmark Suite47.2%48.5%GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites10741195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: UI components10051190GPT-5.2
Design Arena: game dev10051195GPT-5.2
Design Arena: data viz10601202GPT-5.2
Design Arena: 3D10211079GPT-5.2
Design Arena: all code categories10591170GPT-5.2
Design Arena: SVG10201139GPT-5.2
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1152Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1219
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)44.8%49.3%GPT-5.2
MedScribe (Vals AI)83.0%84.4%GPT-5.2
IFBench50.3%75.4%GPT-5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)65.3%82.7%GPT-5.2
DTBench76.5%90.9%GPT-5.2
LMCA27.5%43.9%GPT-5.2
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text14171416Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following14051409GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing14001376Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision12351246GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: English14181422GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: non-English14091405Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese14491447Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German14171444GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese13961420GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Korean13851374Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: French14321454GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish14221413Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian14151415GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Polish14131426GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn14081419GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries14191413Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language14051392Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13931378Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: English12391243GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: Chinese12841305GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: reading text12371257GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: humor12251227GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: captioning12771267Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: recognizing things12521232Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: creative writing12411225Gemini 2.5 Flash
LMArena DocumentNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5.2Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.0015Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.022Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash$0.085Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.490Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.2
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 FlashOpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 17, 2025December 10, 2025
Context window1.05M400K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$1.75
Output $/Mtok$2.50$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved task$0.466$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Only GPT-5.2 has a coding score, 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash for output tokens 5.6x cheaper ($2.50 vs $14.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.466 against $1.91).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.2?

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.466 and GPT-5.2 $1.91.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GPT-5.2?

Gemini 2.5 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

71 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next