Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4o
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro vs GPT-4o: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
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 Pro vs GPT-4o Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | May 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $2.50 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $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 | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 565 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 323 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0036 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 78.8%(78/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 73.3%(22/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
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