Within a few days, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google dropped their most powerful models – GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro. Each claiming supremacy. Each backed by impressive benchmarks. Each promising to revolutionize how we work with AI.
But here’s the thing: there’s no single winner.
After weeks of testing, benchmark analysis, and real-world use across coding projects, business workflows, and creative tasks, one truth emerged: these models are specialists, not generalists.
If you pick the wrong one for your workflow, and you’ll wonder what the hype was about. Pick the right one, and you’ll feel like you’ve unlocked superpowers.
So which one deserves your attention and your budget? Let’s break it down.
Model Overview
Gemini 3 Pro
Google released Gemini 3 Pro on November 18, 2025 – a move that set the stage for the competition to follow.
What stands out:
- 1 million token input, 64K output – the largest input window of the three
- Deep Think mode: an enhanced reasoning mode that boosts performance on PhD-level problems (initially available to safety testers, now rolling out to Google AI Ultra subscribers)
- Multimodal mastery: state-of-the-art performance on text, images, audio, and video – all in one model
- Integration with Nano Banana Pro: offers 4K image generation/editing with text rendering and Google Search grounding
- Knowledge cutoff: January 2025 (the most recent of the three), with Search Grounding for real-time updates
Gemini 3 Pro hits 87.6% on Video-MMMU (video understanding), 93.8% on GPQA Diamond, and ranks #1 on LMArena for general text and chat. It’s built for workflows where seeing, hearing, and thinking need to work together seamlessly.
Access: Free trial in Google AI Studio, Gemini app with tiered plans (Plus, Pro, Ultra), and Gemini API for developers.
Claude Opus 4.5
Six days after Google’s announcement, Anthropic responded with Claude Opus 4.5 on November 24, 2025—not just an incremental update, but a reimagining of what AI can do for complex, sustained work.
What makes it special:
- 200K context window with superior memory preservation across long conversations
- The effort parameter: a unique feature letting you dial response depth up or down, “low” for quick answers, “high” for thorough analysis. This controls both token usage and thinking depth.
- Computer vision zoom: improved tool use that lets the model inspect screen details, UI elements, and small text with precision
- 67% cheaper than its predecessor (Opus 4.1), despite being significantly more capable
Claude Opus 4.5 achieves 80.9% on SWE-bench – the gold standard for software engineering AI – and excels at autonomous, multi-step workflows. It’s the model that turns multi-day coding projects into hours of work.
Access: Direct via Anthropic’s API, plus integrations through Microsoft Azure Foundry and Google Cloud Vertex AI.
GPT-5.2
OpenAI released GPT-5.2 on December 11, 2025, with GPT-5.2 – arriving nearly a month after its competitors, but making a statement with its “Thinking architecture” and three-tiered approach.
What sets it apart:
- Three variants for different needs: Instant (lightning-fast for routine tasks), Thinking (deep reasoning for complex problems), and Pro (the absolute smartest for when you need the best)
- Massive context window: 400,000 tokens input, 128,000 output – enough to process entire codebases or lengthy documents
- Knowledge cutoff: August 31, 2025
- The “Thinking architecture”: a new approach that delivers error-free problem-solving on complex logic tasks
GPT-5.2 represents a 70.9% success rate on GDPval knowledge work tasks – nearly double GPT-5’s 38.8%. It’s OpenAI’s answer to the enterprise productivity challenge, with stricter safety guardrails and a focus on getting work done.
Access: Available via ChatGPT paid plans (Plus at $20/month, Pro at $200/month) and API.
GPT-5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro: Pricing Breakdown
Here’s where things get interesting. The performance differences are subtle, but the pricing gaps? Those can make or break your budget.
| Model | Input Cost (per 1M tokens) | Output Cost (per 1M tokens) | Cached Input | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 Standard | $1.75 | $14 | $0.175 (90% off) | Balanced workloads |
| GPT-5.2 Pro | $21 | $168 | – | Most complex queries |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | $5 | $25 | $0.50 (cache hits) | Professional coding |
| Gemini 3 Pro (≤200K) | $2 | $12 | – | High-volume tasks |
| Gemini 3 Pro (>200K) | $4 | $18 | – | Long-context needs |
Gemini 3 Pro consistently offers the best price-to-performance ratio, especially for high-volume work. GPT-5.2 Standard strikes a middle ground. Claude Opus 4.5, while pricier, delivers value through reliability and reduced token usage (up to 65% fewer tokens needed).
GPT-5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro: The Benchmark Showdown
Let’s look at the numbers across key standardized benchmarks:
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Gemini 3 Pro | What It Measures | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-Bench Verified | 80.0% | 80.9% | – | Real-world software engineering tasks | Claude |
| AIME 2025 (no tools) | 100% | 100% | 95% | Advanced mathematics competition | Tie |
| AIME 2025 (with tools) | 100% | 100% | 100% | Math with code execution | All tied |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.9% | 37.6% | 31.1% | Abstract reasoning and pattern recognition | GPT-5.2 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.2% | – | 91.9% | PhD-level science questions | GPT-5.2 |
| Video-MMMU | – | – | 87.6% | Video understanding and reasoning | Gemini |
| MMMU-Pro | – | – | 81% | Multimodal understanding | Gemini |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 47.6% | Highest | 54.2% | Command-line proficiency | Claude |
| LiveCodeBench Pro | ~2,243 | – | 2,439 | Competitive programming | Gemini |
| Functional Pass Rate | 80.66% | Highest | 81.72% | Code correctness | Gemini |
| GDPval | 70.9% | – | – | Professional knowledge work | GPT-5.2 |
The benchmarks confirm what real-world testing showed: no universal winner exists. Each model dominates specific domains.
- Gemini set the bar first
- Claude responded with targeted improvements in coding and agents
- GPT-5.2 arrived last but dominated reasoning benchmarks
GPT-5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Gemini 3 Pro: Head-to-head comparison
1. Visual realism & simulations
Prompt:
Create a realistic 3D simulation of the Golden Gate Bridge with accurate geometry, International Orange color, full suspension details, and high-fidelity lighting, water physics, and atmospheric effects. Allow full 3D navigation using Orbit, Pan, and Dolly camera controls for free and intuitive movement. Include accurate surrounding environments such as the Marin Headlands, the Presidio, and distant Alcatraz. Simulate dynamic San Francisco Bay water with reflections, wave motion, and subtle current behavior. Use a dynamic skybox with realistic sun movement and accurate shadows changing throughout the day. Add a Fog slider (0–100%) that adjusts height-based fog from light wisps to dense Karl the Fog covering the tower tops. Add a Traffic Density slider (0–100%) controlling vehicles from none to full bumper-to-bumper flow with realistic movement. Include a Weather selector offering Clear, Overcast, and Light Rain with wet pavement and subtle rain effects. Add a Time of Day selector with Morning, Afternoon, and Night lighting, including streetlights, skyline glow, Alcatraz glow, and optional marine-layer fog. Include marine traffic such as a small freighter, a ferry, and pleasure craft moving slowly beneath the bridge.
Based on this Golden Gate Bridge prompt, the difference between the three models is very clear.
- Gemini 3 Pro delivers the most realistic result, especially in terms of water behavior, fog layering, motion, and overall physical feel of the scene. The simulation actually behaves like a real environment, not just a visually correct render.
- Claude Opus 4.5 is the fastest and smoothest to interact with – camera movement, panning, and parameter changes feel instant and responsive, even if some visual details are less refined.
- GPT-5.2: in our test, it seems that GPT-5.2 (without Thinking) didn’t work- the game didn’t load, so it wasn’t playable. It’s worth retrying the same prompt with Thinking enabled to see if GPT-5.2 can produce a functional version.
Winner: Gemini 3 Pro
2. Creative writing
Prompt:
I’m working on a YouTube video about AI replacing human jobs faster than most people expect.
The video is not about hype or fear-mongering.
It focuses on what is actually happening right now and what will realistically happen next.Draft three different hooks I could use as the intro.
Each hook should be short, direct, and make viewers want to keep watching.
Here’s the result of this test:
- Claude Opus 4.5 produced the strongest hooks, with clear, human-sounding intros that grabbed attention immediately.
- GPT-5.2 focused more on framing and long-term patterns, resulting in thoughtful but slightly less punchy hooks.
- Gemini 3 Pro delivered clear and usable hooks, but they felt more generic and less distinctive.
3. Design
Prompt:
Create a clone of photoshop with all the basic tools. Include brushes, layers, edit history, filters, blending options, and more.
Based on our test, both Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2 performed well in the Photoshop clone task, but in different ways.
- Claude Opus 4.5 produced the most accurate Photoshop-like clone, with a UI and toolset that closely matched real Photoshop behavior.
- GPT-5.2, on the other hand, felt more functional, offering broader capabilities and interactions, even though some features were less polished.
- Gemini 3 Pro was noticeably simpler, with fewer tools and limited functionality compared to the other two.
Test The New Models’ Performance with TypingMind
If you want to evaluate these models yourself, TypingMind makes the process much easier. It allows you to test multiple AI models side by side in the same interface, using the exact same prompts and workflows.
Instead of switching between platforms or tools, you can compare outputs from GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro in real time. This makes it much faster to identify which model works best for your specific use case.
Final Thought
After testing GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro across a small set of benchmarks and real-world prompts, one thing is clear: there’s no single “best” model.
Each model shows strengths in different areas, and our results should be seen as directional rather than definitive. The differences become noticeable only when you match a model to a specific type of task.
From what we observed, Gemini 3 Pro tends to perform well on visually rich, multimodal, and simulation-style tasks. Claude Opus 4.5 stands out for clarity, polish, and consistency, especially in writing and design-oriented prompts. GPT-5.2 appears strongest in structured reasoning and analytical work, though more testing is needed to fully understand how it performs across interactive and creative tasks.
The most important takeaway is not which model “wins,” but how quickly the gap disappears when the task changes. Benchmarks offer useful signals, but real workflows expose trade-offs that numbers alone can’t capture.
If you choose a model based on what you actually do day to day – not headline scores – you’ll get far more value out of these systems.
