Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.5
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.5 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-5.5 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.5: 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-5.5 is a multimodal large language model released by OpenAI on April 23, 2026, engineered for autonomous, multi-step knowledge work and agentic workflows. It accepts text, images, and code as input, featuring enhanced spatial reasoning and visual grounding to support its computer use capabilities for operating software and navigating UI elements. Built to execute complex workflows end-to-end, the model interprets loosely defined tasks, selects appropriate tools, and performs self-verification with minimal user intervention. It is available in a standard version, a Thinking mode for extended reasoning budgets, and a Pro variant that uses parallel test-time compute for maximum precision on complex tasks.
Co-optimized with NVIDIA for GB200 NVL72 infrastructure, GPT-5.5 delivers per-token latency comparable to its predecessor GPT-5.4 while maintaining a 1-million-token context window. Despite increased capability, the model achieves greater token efficiency in coding and data analysis workflows, often completing tasks with fewer total tokens than previous versions. OpenAI reports a 60% reduction in hallucination rate compared to GPT-5.4, improving reliability for accuracy-sensitive applications. API access is available via the Responses and Chat Completions endpoints at $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens, double the unit price of GPT-5.4.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $5.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $30.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 53.73% | 77.61% |
| Avg Response Time | 7.19s | 30.12s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 6 | 138 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0000 | $0.011 |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| 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