Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.1
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-5.1 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-5.1 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 Pro vs GPT-5.1: 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-5.1 is an OpenAI frontier-grade model in the GPT-5 series, offering stronger general-purpose reasoning, clearer long-form responses, and improved instruction following. It introduces two variants—Instant and Thinking—that dynamically adjust computational depth. Instant focuses on fast, conversational replies, while Thinking provides deeper, more thorough reasoning for complex tasks. In ChatGPT, GPT-5.1 also powers an Auto mode that switches between these variants automatically based on task difficulty.
The model supports significantly expanded context windows: up to 16K/32K/128K tokens for Instant (depending on tier) and up to 196K tokens for Thinking on paid tiers. GPT-5.1 is also compatible with ChatGPT tools such as web search, file and image analysis, and multi-step workflows.
GPT-5.1 includes enhanced tone and style controls, allowing responses to be tailored using presets like Friendly, Professional, or Efficient, along with fine-grained adjustments for warmth, brevity, and emoji usage. Designed for broad applications in research assistance, coding, analysis, and conversational agents, GPT-5.1 serves as OpenAI’s primary full-capability successor to GPT-5 across ChatGPT and API integrations.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.1 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 196K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $10.00 |
| 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 | 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) | |
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