Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol: 76.9% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#13 of 65 models). We have not run Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score. Run both on your own image below.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6 Sol 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
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 6, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Unknown | undisclosed |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | Not evaluated | 76.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 10.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 74.7% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 76.4% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 77.4 |
| Counting (low) | – | 76.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 77.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Identification (low) | – | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | – | 92.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | – | 66.7% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 68.8% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 72.6% ±3.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.5 to 76.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 77.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 78.8 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-6 Sol: 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-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.
The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.