Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 Mini
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5.4 Mini 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-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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 Mini: 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-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 vs GPT-5.4 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5.4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $4.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 55.22% | 74.63% |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | 7.87s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 171 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 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