Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5 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 vs GPT-5: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash is a multimodal language model developed by Google DeepMind and released at Google I/O 2026. It is built on the Gemini 3 Flash reasoning foundation and introduces configurable thinking levels (minimal, low, medium, and high) that allow developers to tune the depth of internal reasoning before a response is generated. The model accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs and produces text output, with a 1 million token context window and up to 65,000 output tokens per request. It is natively multimodal, processing visual inputs alongside text to support tasks such as image captioning, classification, optical character recognition, object detection, and visual grounding, where the model references specific regions within an image or video frame.
Its vision capabilities extend to interpreting UI screenshots, diagrams, charts, and real-world scenes, as well as understanding video and live frame sequences for activity and scene recognition. The model supports combined tool use, including Google Search, URL context, code execution, and custom functions, within a single request, and it uses reasoning context from previous turns when thought signatures are present in the conversation history, enabling persistent multi-turn reasoning chains. Gemini 3.5 Flash carries a knowledge cutoff of January 2026 and is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, and the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform.
GPT-5, released by OpenAI in August 2025, is a multimodal large language model that advances beyond the GPT-4 family with a new “unified system” architecture. This design allows the model to dynamically choose between fast responses and extended reasoning depending on task complexity. It supports text, code, and images, alongside stronger tool use and agentic workflows, making it more adaptable for real-world problem solving. While its exact context window size is not disclosed, GPT-5 is optimized for long-horizon reasoning and multi-step tool chaining, indicating substantially expanded capacity over its predecessors.
The release introduced specialized variants: GPT-5 Pro, offering extended reasoning for complex workflows, and GPT-5 Codex, optimized for advanced coding tasks such as large-scale refactoring and code review. GPT-5 shows benchmark gains in coding, biomedical reasoning, multimodal analysis, and scientific tasks. Developers also gain new controls, such as verbosity and personalization parameters, for greater steerability. With these improvements, GPT-5 positions itself as OpenAI’s most capable and versatile model, suited for enterprise automation, research, healthcare, and sophisticated coding environments.
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.50 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $9.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 79.1% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.71s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 294 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0043 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 60%(6/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| 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