Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 Mini 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-5.4 Mini 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-5.4 Mini
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini: 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-5.4 Mini

GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.

Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGPT-5.4 Mini
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Mar 2026
Context Window1.0M400K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.750
Output $/1M$0.400$4.50
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
53.73%
74.63%
Avg Response Time7.19s7.87s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294
Median output tokens6
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0000
Defect Detection
66.7%(10/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
66.7%(6/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
30%(3/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
85.7%(12/14)
Spatial Understanding
47.4%(9/19)
78.9%(15/19)

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