Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-5.2
Detailed comparison between Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.2 for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.
Model Comparison
Gemini 3 Flash takes the lead.
Both Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.2 are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.
Why Gemini 3 Flash:
- Gemini 3 Flash has 22 higher ELO rating
- Gemini 3 Flash has a 16.3% higher win rate
Overview
Key metrics
ELO Rating
Overall ranking quality
Gemini 3 Flash
GPT-5.2
Win Rate
Head-to-head performance
Gemini 3 Flash
GPT-5.2
Quality Score
Overall quality metric
Gemini 3 Flash
GPT-5.2
Average Latency
Response time
Gemini 3 Flash
GPT-5.2
Visual Performance Analysis
Performance
ELO Rating Comparison
Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown
Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)
Latency Distribution (ms)
Breakdown
How the models stack up
| Metric | Gemini 3 Flash | GPT-5.2 | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Performance | |||
| ELO Rating | 1607 | 1585 | Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons |
| Win Rate | 61.0% | 44.7% | Percentage of comparisons won against other models |
| Quality Score | 4.95 | 4.97 | Average quality across all RAG metrics |
| Pricing & Context | |||
| Input Price per 1M | $0.50 | $1.75 | Cost per million input tokens |
| Output Price per 1M | $3.00 | $14.00 | Cost per million output tokens |
| Context Window | 1049K | 400K | Maximum context window size |
| Release Date | 2025-12-17 | 2025-12-11 | Model release date |
| Performance Metrics | |||
| Avg Latency | 7.8s | 5.4s | Average response time across all datasets |
Dataset Performance
By benchmark
Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.
MSMARCO
| Metric | Gemini 3 Flash | GPT-5.2 | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Metrics | |||
| Correctness | 4.83 | 5.00 | Factual accuracy of responses |
| Faithfulness | 4.87 | 5.00 | Adherence to source material |
| Grounding | 4.87 | 5.00 | Citations and context usage |
| Relevance | 5.00 | 4.97 | Query alignment and focus |
| Completeness | 4.90 | 4.87 | Coverage of all aspects |
| Overall | 4.89 | 4.97 | Average across all metrics |
| Latency Metrics | |||
| Mean | 6852ms | 2652ms | Average response time |
| Min | 3389ms | 796ms | Fastest response time |
| Max | 9837ms | 5810ms | Slowest response time |
PG
| Metric | Gemini 3 Flash | GPT-5.2 | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Metrics | |||
| Correctness | 5.00 | 5.00 | Factual accuracy of responses |
| Faithfulness | 5.00 | 5.00 | Adherence to source material |
| Grounding | 5.00 | 5.00 | Citations and context usage |
| Relevance | 5.00 | 4.97 | Query alignment and focus |
| Completeness | 5.00 | 4.97 | Coverage of all aspects |
| Overall | 5.00 | 4.99 | Average across all metrics |
| Latency Metrics | |||
| Mean | 9444ms | 8702ms | Average response time |
| Min | 5346ms | 2755ms | Fastest response time |
| Max | 12549ms | 14361ms | Slowest response time |
SciFact
| Metric | Gemini 3 Flash | GPT-5.2 | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Metrics | |||
| Correctness | 5.00 | 4.97 | Factual accuracy of responses |
| Faithfulness | 5.00 | 5.00 | Adherence to source material |
| Grounding | 5.00 | 5.00 | Citations and context usage |
| Relevance | 4.97 | 5.00 | Query alignment and focus |
| Completeness | 4.83 | 4.83 | Coverage of all aspects |
| Overall | 4.96 | 4.96 | Average across all metrics |
| Latency Metrics | |||
| Mean | 7110ms | 4785ms | Average response time |
| Min | 3784ms | 1318ms | Fastest response time |
| Max | 18224ms | 10172ms | Slowest response time |
Explore More
Compare more LLMs
See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.