Compare · ModelsLive · 2 picked · head to head

Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5.3-Codex

Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.

Winner summary

GPT-5.3-Codex wins 7 of 9 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · general.

Category leads
speed·GPT-5.3-Codexagentic·GPT-5.3-Codexgeneral·GPT-5.3-Codexknowledge·Gemini 3 Procoding·GPT-5.3-Codex
Hype vs Reality
Gemini 3 Pro
#73 by perf·#6 by attention
DESERVED
GPT-5.3-Codex
#78 by perf·#10 by attention
DESERVED
Best value
Gemini 3 Pro
n/a
no price
GPT-5.3-Codex
7.1 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Google DeepMind logo
Google DeepMind
$4.27T·Tier 1
Low risk
OpenAI logo
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Medium risk
Head to head
Gemini 3 ProGPT-5.3-Codex
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +17.1
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Gemini 3 Pro
45.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
62.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +13.7
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Gemini 3 Pro
39.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +8.8
Gemini 3 Pro
41.3
GPT-5.3-Codex
32.5
APEX-Agents
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +13.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Gemini 3 Pro
18.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
31.7
Metr Time Horizons
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +3.6
Gemini 3 Pro
71.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.5
PostTrainBench
Gemini 3 Pro leads by +0.4
Gemini 3 Pro
18.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
17.8
SWE-Bench verified
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +1.9
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Gemini 3 Pro
72.9
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.8
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +9.0
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.4
WeirdML
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +9.4
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Gemini 3 Pro
69.9
GPT-5.3-Codex
79.3
Full benchmark table
BenchmarkGemini 3 ProGPT-5.3-Codex
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
45.062.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
39.453.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
41.332.5
APEX-Agents
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
18.431.7
Metr Time Horizons
71.074.5
PostTrainBench
18.117.8
SWE-Bench verified
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
72.974.8
Terminal Bench
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
69.478.4
WeirdML
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
69.979.3
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
ModelInputOutputContextProjected $/mo
Google DeepMind logoGemini 3 Pro————
OpenAI logoGPT-5.3-Codex$1.75$14.00400K tokens (~200 books)$48.13