Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Exaone 4.0 32B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 83 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Exaone 4.0 32B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Pick Exaone 4.0 32B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Exaone 4.0 32B
81.8
Gemini 3 Pro
95
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Exaone 4.0 32B is ahead overall, 83 to 59.
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95 versus 81.8. Exaone 4.0 32B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.