Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemma 4 12B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 4 12B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 10 to Gemma 4 12B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 11
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Gemini 2.5 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.25 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 12B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 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 2.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | Margin→ 65.9 | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | Margin→ 50.1 | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12B43.4 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12B69.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83%B 78.8%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 4.2GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Gemma 4 12B256K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | 78.8% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| HLESource | 18.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 22.0% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 75.3% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 14.8% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | -51.9% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 16.0% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 80.8% | Gemma 4 12B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 5.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
MathGemma 4 12B wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 73.5% | Gemma 4 12B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.25 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83% and 78.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 11.6. Gemini 2.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.