Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.5% to 16.1%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 63.5% (#23 of 25) for GPT-5.4 Mini.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0030 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 5.3s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | 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 |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.6% | 63.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0030 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 5.35s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 57.5% $0.0023 | 16.1% $0.0044 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0007 | 60.8% $0.0019 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0004 | 78.1% $0.0013 |
| OCR | 87.4% $0.0011 | 88.1% $0.0042 |
| Data Extraction | 90.7% $0.0004 | 82.5% $0.0014 |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% $0.0012 | 55.6% $0.0023 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0042 | 62.9% $0.0081 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 Mini: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.
On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#14 of 25) against 63.5% (#23 of 25) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 57.5% against 16.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0030. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; GPT-5.4 Mini is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 5.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.