Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4.1 nano
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-4.1 nano side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Object Detection, OCR, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4.1 nano live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
GPT-4.1 nano is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4.1 nano: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, released for general availability on July 22, 2025, is the most cost-efficient model in the Gemini 2.5 family, designed for high-volume and latency-sensitive tasks. It is multimodal, supporting text, images, video, audio, and PDFs as inputs, with text as its primary output. The model handles up to 1 million input tokens and generates outputs up to 64K tokens, making it suitable for large-scale document or media processing at low cost. It is built on a Sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with native multimodal support, though exact parameter counts are undisclosed.
Flash-Lite offers the lowest usage cost among Gemini 2.5 models. It introduces developer controls for “thinking mode,” allowing fine-tuning of reasoning depth vs. efficiency. It also integrates native tools such as code execution, search grounding, and URL context. While strong on translation, classification, coding, and general multimodal reasoning, it lacks support for image or audio generation in its stable release and is less capable than Gemini 2.5 Flash or Pro on complex reasoning-heavy workflows.
GPT-4.1 nano, released by OpenAI in April 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient member of the GPT-4.1 family. It is multimodal, supporting both text and image inputs, and retains the family’s extended 1 million-token context window—allowing it to handle large documents or codebases despite its lightweight design. Its training knowledge extends to June 2024.
GPT-4.1 nano prioritizes speed and affordability over raw reasoning power. While less capable than GPT-4.1 and GPT-4.1 mini, it is well-suited for high-volume or latency-sensitive workloads such as classification, autocomplete, content moderation, and lightweight assistants. This makes it an attractive option for developers seeking scalable deployment where efficiency is more critical than deep reasoning.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-4.1 nano Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $0.400 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 53.73% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.19s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | <$0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 47.4%(9/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 77.73% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.45s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 12 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | <$0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 75.8%(75/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 70%(7/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology