Roboflow

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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-4.1 nano

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

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

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

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGPT-4.1 nano
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Apr 2025
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.100
Output $/1M$0.400$0.400
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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 Time7.19s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens6
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 Time7.45s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290
Median output tokens12
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