When people talk about entry level Nikon DSLRs many tend to assume the "5000" series are more advanced cameras if compared to the "3000". In my opinion this is a misconception, as it's more about different than better or worse, and I would surely pick a D3100 (which I own and love) or D3200 instead of a D5000, D5100 or D5200.

What makes a camera actually better in the DSLR world? Access to most functions w/o entering the menu, how it handles, some advanced feature, better compatibility, sturdier build. Image quality in itself is more than acceptable across 99% of brands and models, even for professionals, if one knows how to get what he/she wants. Extreme speed, AF performance and real difference in image quality with regard to resolution and noise are only found in top-level cameras which are too expensive, complex, heavy and big for most people. People who need to rely heavily on their camera to earn a living often buy the best they can afford, yet that's another story.

See any "real world" features actually implemented in the 5000 series while lacking in the 3000? Two button card formatting? Both don't have this. Real difference in resolution and AF system? No. AF mode, ISO, metering mode, WB selection at the touch of a button? None. Depth of field preview? No. Internal AF motor? No. Two different control wheels for shutter and aperture, also useful for other settings? No. A real, big, fully customizable Fn button? No. A tiny partially customizable Fn button? Yes, the same on both. Water/dust resitance? Same. Difference in viewfinder size, grip size, overall build quality? Not much, really.

My answer to your question: the 5100 and 5200 are quite the same as the 3100 and 3200, only a bit larger, uglier and more expensive, with a swiveling screen added. You do the math.