Google / MODEL EVIDENCE

Gemini 2.5 Pro

30 benchmarks · 52 observations · 30 sources · released 2025-06-05

Scores at a glance

30 benchmarks · large dot: Gemini 2.5 Pro; small dots: closest models where reported

84.8689.76

Gemini 2.5 Pro · MMLU-Pro · AA implementation ↗

5.740.3

Gemini-2.5-pro† · PolyMath · PolyMath-Top · Mean accuracy across the published languages ↗

3 more reported results

62.2% · Gemini-2.5-pro† · PolyMath · PolyMath-High · Mean accuracy across the published languages · PolyMath: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning in Multilingual Contexts ↗

72% · Gemini-2.5-pro† · PolyMath · PolyMath-Medium · Mean accuracy across the published languages · PolyMath: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning in Multilingual Contexts ↗

86.4% · Gemini-2.5-pro† · PolyMath · PolyMath-Low · Mean accuracy across the published languages · PolyMath: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning in Multilingual Contexts ↗

4.842.9

Gemini-2.5-Pro · BrowseComp-ZH · Answer accuracy · original comparison ↗

1999

Gemini 2.5 Pro · LiveCodeBench Pro · Elo rating · human contest calibration ↗

3 more reported results

0% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · LiveCodeBench Pro · Hard · pass@1 · difficulty breakdown · LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming? ↗

25.4% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · LiveCodeBench Pro · Medium · pass@1 · difficulty breakdown · LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming? ↗

70.4% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · LiveCodeBench Pro · Easy · pass@1 · difficulty breakdown · LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming? ↗

7.169.2

Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Execution pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs ↗

7 more reported results

57.7% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Search pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

18.1% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Ambiguity pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

17.5% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Adaptability pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

7.3% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Time pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

20.4% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Noise pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

20.4% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Agent2Agent pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

25.8% · Gemini-2.5-Pro · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Overall pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

42.463.6

Gemini 2.5 pro · BeyondAIME · accuracy · Seed-Thinking-v1.5 · published comparison ↗

070

gemini-2.5-pro · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Public · FrontierMath public · 10 questions · source run score · Epoch AI · public February 2025 sample · historical release ↗

22.9933.51

Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Overall accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison ↗

8 more reported results

29% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Easy accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

24% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Medium accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

5% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Hard accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

45.09% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · Overall accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

65% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · NSA reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

47% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · CrowdStrike reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

40% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · IC3 reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

41% · Gemini 2.5 Pro · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · CISA reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗

1.312.05

Gemini 2.5 Pro (high) · Harmonic-mean speedup ↗

ForecastBench ↗64.2 Brier index
46.467

gemini-2.5-pro† · Overall difficulty-adjusted Brier index ↗

Closest models by score

Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.

GPT-5 →OpenAI
33.7 percentile-point gap

13 of 17 shared benchmark comparisons

How similarity is measured

Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.

Sources

Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.

  1. Global-MMLU-Lite Benchmark | Artificial Analysis ↗

    Artificial Analysis

  2. LiveCodeBench Benchmark | Artificial Analysis ↗

    Artificial Analysis

  3. MATH-500 Benchmark | Artificial Analysis ↗

    Artificial Analysis

  4. MMLU-Pro Benchmark | Artificial Analysis ↗

    Artificial Analysis

  5. PolyMath: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning in Multilingual Contexts — published result table ↗

    Yiming Wang, Pei Zhang, Jialong Tang, Haoran Wei, Baosong Yang, Rui Wang et al. · 2025

    All 16 authors

    Yiming Wang, Pei Zhang, Jialong Tang, Haoran Wei, Baosong Yang, Rui Wang, Chenshu Sun, Feitong Sun, Jiran Zhang, Junxuan Wu, Qiqian Cang, Yichang Zhang, Fei Huang, Junyang Lin, Fei Huang, Jingren Zhou

  6. SealQA: Raising the Bar for Reasoning in Search-Augmented Language Models — published result table ↗

    Pham, Thinh, Nguyen, Nguyen, Zunjare, Pratibha, Chen, Weiyuan, Tseng, Yu-Min, Vu, Tu · 2025

  7. LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming? — published result table ↗

    Zihan Zheng, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen, Shang Zhou, Kaiyuan Liu, Hansen He et al. · 2025

    All 19 authors

    Zihan Zheng, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen, Shang Zhou, Kaiyuan Liu, Hansen He, Dongruixuan Li, Stanley Wei, Hangyi Hao, Jianzhu Yao, Peiyao Sheng, Zixuan Wang, Wenhao Chai, Aleksandra Korolova, Peter Henderson, Sanjeev Arora, Pramod Viswanath, Jingbo Shang, Saining Xie

  8. TextQuests: How Good are LLMs at Text-Based Video Games? — published result table ↗

    Phan, Long, Mazeika, Mantas, Zou, Andy, Hendrycks, Dan · 2025

  9. CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning — published result table ↗

    Deason, Lauren, Bali, Adam, Bejean, Ciprian, Bolocan, Diana, Crnkovich, James, Croitoru, Ioana et al. · 2025

    All 23 authors

    Deason, Lauren, Bali, Adam, Bejean, Ciprian, Bolocan, Diana, Crnkovich, James, Croitoru, Ioana, Durai, Krishna, Midler, Chase, Miron, Calin, Molnar, David, Moon, Brad, Ostarcevic, Bruno, Peltea, Alberto, Rosenberg, Matt, Sandu, Catalin, Saputkin, Arthur, Shah, Sagar, Stan, Daniel, Szocs, Ernest, Wan, Shengye, Whitman, Spencer, Krasser, Sven, Saxe, Joshua

  10. CMT-Benchmark: A Benchmark for Condensed Matter Theory Built by Expert Researchers — published result table ↗

    Pan, Haining, Roggeveen, James V., Berg, Erez, Carrasquilla, Juan, Chowdhury, Debanjan, Ganguli, Surya et al. · 2025

    All 19 authors

    Pan, Haining, Roggeveen, James V., Berg, Erez, Carrasquilla, Juan, Chowdhury, Debanjan, Ganguli, Surya, Ghimenti, Federico, Hasik, Juraj, Hunt, Henry, Jiang, Hong-Chen, Kamb, Mason, Kao, Ying-Jer, Khatami, Ehsan, Lawler, Michael J., Luo, Di, Neupert, Titus, Qi, Xiaoliang, Brenner, Michael P., Kim, Eun-Ah

  11. Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments — published result table ↗

    Froger, Romain, Andrews, Pierre, Bettini, Matteo, Budhiraja, Amar, Cabral, Ricardo Silveira, Do, Virginie et al. · 2026

    All 24 authors

    Froger, Romain, Andrews, Pierre, Bettini, Matteo, Budhiraja, Amar, Cabral, Ricardo Silveira, Do, Virginie, Garreau, Emilien, Gaya, Jean-Baptiste, Laurençon, Hugo, Lecanu, Maxime, Malkan, Kunal, Mekala, Dheeraj, Ménard, Pierre, Bertran, Gerard Moreno-Torres, Piterbarg, Ulyana, Plekhanov, Mikhail, Rita, Mathieu, Rusakov, Andrey, Vorotilov, Vladislav, Wang, Mengjue, Yu, Ian, Benhalloum, Amine, Mialon, Grégoire, Scialom, Thomas

  12. Algotune — methodology and published results ↗

    Epoch AI · 2026

  13. Forecastbench — methodology and published results ↗

    Epoch AI · 2026

  14. Vending Bench 2 — methodology and published results ↗

    Epoch AI · 2026

  15. Scale Labs — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Scale Labs / SEAL · 2026

  16. Scale Labs — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Scale Labs / SEAL · 2026

  17. Scale Labs — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Scale Labs / SEAL · 2026

  18. Scale Labs — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Scale Labs / SEAL · 2026

  19. Seed-Thinking-v1.5: Advancing Superb Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning ↗

    ByteDance Seed · 2025

  20. BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinese — published result table ↗

    Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye et al. · 2025

    All 16 authors

    Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Zhiling Jin, Chenxuan Xie, Meng Cao, Yuxin Gu, Sixin Hong, Jing Ren, Jian Chen, Chao Liu, Yining Hua

  21. A Rosetta Stone for AI Benchmarks — released Epoch evaluation runs ↗

    Epoch AI · 2025

  22. CaseLaw — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  23. CorpFin — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  24. MedCode — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  25. MedScribe — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  26. MortgageTax — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  27. Poker Agent — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  28. SAGE — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  29. SWE-bench Verified — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

  30. Vibe Code Bench — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

Names used in source tables

Gemini 2.5 Pro · Gemini 2.5 Pro (Mini-SWE-agent) · Gemini 2.5 Pro (OpenHands) · Gemini 2.5 Pro (high) · Gemini 2.5 pro · Gemini-2.5-Pro · Gemini-2.5-pro† · gemini-2-5-pro · gemini-2.5-pro · gemini-2.5-pro (Thinking) · gemini-2.5-pro†