GPT-5.2 wins on coding (85 vs 80). Gemini 3.1 Pro wins on price ($2 vs $12/1M input) and context window (2M vs 200K). For most workflows, GPT-5.2 is the stronger default — capable but outclassed — gpt-5.4 is now cheaper and better.
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
GPT-5.2 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
Google / Premium / Mar 24, 2026
Best for research and deep document analysis — 2M context at the best premium price.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
Your primary use case is writing quality or agentic coding — Claude wins both.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Reliable at debugging and multi-file code edits
Strong structured reasoning for product and technical workflows
Solid default for teams that want one premium OpenAI model
Superseded by GPT-5.4 for most use cases
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on both coding and writing quality
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
GPT-5.2 wins on more categories — coding, research, reasoning. Gemini 3.1 Pro is the better pick when research. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper at $2/1M input and $12/1M output. GPT-5.2 costs $12/1M input and $38/1M output.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger context window at 2M tokens vs GPT-5.2's 200K. For large document analysis, Gemini 3.1 Pro is the stronger pick.
GPT-5.2 is better for coding with a score of 85 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro's 80. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.
Both GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3.1 Pro have similar speed profiles — rated balanced.
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
GPT-5.2 leads on coding with a score of 85 vs 80 for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger context window: 2M vs 200K for GPT-5.2.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper at $2/1M input tokens vs $12/1M for GPT-5.2.
Choose GPT-5.2 for coding and research — serious coding and complex product work.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro when research.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the more cost-efficient option at $2/1M — worth considering if token volume is a concern.
