Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs GPT-5.2 Pro
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.2 Pro in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 30.0.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 52.3 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2025-12-11 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 400K |
| Max output | — | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $21 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $168 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 8 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 155.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 54.2% |
| SimpleBench | — | 57.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 79.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 90.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 31.3% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), GPT-5.2 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than GPT-5.2 Pro?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GPT-5.2 Pro share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Pro has 8.