Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GPT-5.2
At a Glance
| Compare |  Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle DeepMind |  GPT-5.2OpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #33 of 4649.3 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #28 of 44$0.161 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #34 of 3844.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.25Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $1.75Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $1.50Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $14.00Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 400K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 71.3091% of row best · points · Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite · 1,628 output tokens / case | 78.08100% of row best · points · GPT-5.2 · 4,266 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | OpenAI |
| Family | Gemini 3 | Gpt 5 2 |
| Model | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.2 |
| Version | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-12-11 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2025-08-31 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 400K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Capabilities
GPT-5.2 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GPT-5.2 FAQs
Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is $0.25 and GPT-5.2 is $1.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is $1.50 and GPT-5.2 is $14.00 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite supports 1,049K and GPT-5.2 supports 400K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is not marked open weight; GPT-5.2 is not marked open weight.
Can Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-5.2 understand images?+
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite is documented with image input; GPT-5.2 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
GPT-5.2 has the larger sourced maximum output: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite supports 66K and GPT-5.2 supports 128K output tokens.
Do Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GPT-5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GPT-5.2: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has 2 sourced provider routes; GPT-5.2 has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GPT-5.2?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.