Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4o
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-4o side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4o 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-4o 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 vs GPT-4o: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
GPT-4o (“omni”), released by OpenAI in May 2024, is a multimodal flagship model designed to unify text, image, and audio processing in a single system. Unlike earlier GPT-4 variants, GPT-4o supports real-time speech-to-speech interaction, enabling natural voice conversations alongside text and image reasoning. It features a context window of ~128,000 tokens for text input, with smaller output limits (commonly ~16K tokens), and has a knowledge cutoff of October 2023.
The model is optimized for efficiency and multilingual accessibility, supporting over 50 languages and covering ~97% of the world’s speakers. GPT-4o offers a cost-effective balance of speed and capability. It powers ChatGPT across free and paid tiers, making it widely accessible for applications in conversational AI, real-time translation, multimodal assistants, and global-scale communication tools.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-4o Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | May 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $2.50 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $10.00 |
| 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 | 55.22% | |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 171 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 79.04% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.39s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 81 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 79.8%(79/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 71.7%(43/60) | |
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