Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.7% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#9 of 69 models). We have not run Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 vs GPT-6.1 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 vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-6.1 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 | $0.300 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $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 | 81.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | – | $0.0068 |
| Avg speed / sample | – | 12.82s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | – | 80.8% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 81.6% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0 |
| Counting (low) | – | 78.8% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 80.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | – | 89.6% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 88.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | – | 75.8% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | – | 83.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 88.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol: 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-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.
OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.