Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5 Nano 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 Nano 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
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-5 Nano
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash

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 Nano

GPT-5 Nano, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient model in the GPT-5 family. Like its larger counterparts, it is multimodal—accepting text and images, supporting tool use, structured outputs, and reasoning—but it is optimized for speed, low latency, and affordability. It features input and output token limits of roughly 272K and 128K tokens respectively, enabling large-context processing even at its compact scale. Its knowledge cutoff is around May 2024, slightly earlier than the full GPT-5 model.

GPT-5 Nano is well-suited for high-volume or cost-sensitive deployments such as mobile apps, embedded AI systems, or rapid-response APIs. While it offers less depth on complex reasoning and coding tasks compared to GPT-5 Mini or Pro, it retains core multimodal and agentic capabilities, making it an attractive option where efficiency and scale matter more than maximum performance.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 FlashGPT-5 Nano
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Aug 2025
Context Window1.0M400K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$0.050
Output $/1M$2.50$0.400
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%
Visual Understanding
Overall Score
55.22%
58.21%
Avg Response Time24.91s6.58s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2941.8K
Median output tokens171591
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0005$0.0003
Defect Detection
60%(9/15)
86.7%(13/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
66.7%(6/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
0%(0/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
64.3%(9/14)
Spatial Understanding
52.6%(10/19)
57.9%(11/19)
OCR
Overall Score
79.04%
69%
Avg Response Time2.39s6.15s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens290122
Median output tokens81539
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0003$0.0002
Focused Scene OCR
79.8%(79/99)
64.6%(64/99)
Handwritten Math
80%(8/10)
40%(4/10)
License Plate Recognition
90%(27/30)
83.3%(25/30)
Text Recognition
80%(24/30)
70%(21/30)
VQA & Extraction
71.7%(43/60)
73.3%(44/60)

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