Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-5.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

60.49/100
Margin
13.0pts
winning →
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
73.51/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3 Flash #49 (Supported); GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.5 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 3 Flash; 39 to GPT-5.5.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
18
Gemini 3 Flash only
1
GPT-5.5 only
39
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 60.49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 47.6 against 27.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 4.167% to 35.400%.

GPT-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3 Flash. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Flash 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.

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 scores and score margins for Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.5
CategoryGemini 3 FlashΔGPT-5.5
MathGemini 3 Flash27.8Margin→ 19.8GPT-5.547.6
AgenticGemini 3 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.581.6
CodingGemini 3 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.558.6
ReasoningGemini 3 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.585.0
KnowledgeGemini 3 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.557.8
MultimodalGemini 3 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.570.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3 FlashB · GPT-5.5

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 35.400%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 31.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3 Flash scored 4.167%; GPT-5.5 scored 35.400%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 35.640%B 51.700%
    Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 16.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3 Flash scored 35.640%; GPT-5.5 scored 51.700%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3 Flash$0.5 input / $3 outputGPT-5.5$5 input / $30 outputGemini 3 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3 Flash159 tok/sGPT-5.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3 Flash1.19 sGPT-5.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3 Flash1MGPT-5.51MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
Claw-EvalSource 49.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 43.3%93.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 56.63%72.93%GPT-5.5 leads
JobBenchSource 11.4%42.7%GPT-5.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —82%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —81.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —84.4%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —78.7%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —75.3%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —55.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —44.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —37.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —49.5%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1490Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —17.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —13.0%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1154Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —42.1%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —46.6%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —86.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —45.8%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —31.3%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —60.6%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —84.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.20%69.85%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 49.9%56.1%GPT-5.5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource —58.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —82.0%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —84.7%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —59.2%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —58.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —74.9%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —43.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
AA-LCRSource 48.0%74.3%GPT-5.5 leads
CritPtSource 1.4%27.1%GPT-5.5 leads
MRCR v2 64K-128KSource —83.1%Not comparable
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource —87.5%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —85%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 27.4%54.8%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.2%93.5%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-HLESource 14.1%44.3%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.6%20.1%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.5%56.9%GPT-5.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 90.2%85.5%GPT-5.5 leads
GPQASource —93.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —93.6%Not comparable
HLESource —52.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —41.4%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.5 wins
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 35.640%51.700%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%35.400%GPT-5.5 leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —51.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.6%79.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12261282GPT-5.5 leads
MMMU-ProSource —81.2%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —83.2%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource —54.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3 FlashGPT-5.5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 55.1%75.9%GPT-5.5 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemini 3 Flash or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 60.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 4.167% and 35.400%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3 Flash or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 47.6 versus 27.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 2026

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.