Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.6 Terra score 80.1% vs 66.0% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#10 and #32 of 69 models), so Gemini 3.7 Flash leads overall.
- Gemini 3.7 Flash wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (80.8% vs 60.9%).
- Gemini 3.7 Flash is about a third of the cost: $0.0033 vs $0.010 overall average cost per sample.
- GPT-5.6 Terra is faster: 9.5s vs 11.0s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra 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 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.7 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $12.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 80.1% | 66.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.010 |
| Avg speed / sample | 11.04s | 9.52s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 70.5% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5 | 60.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 74.3% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0 | 61.3% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6 |
| Counting (low) | 78.4% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7 | 65.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6 |
| Counting (high) | 79.3% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1 | 62.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 73.9% | 56.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 78.8% | 56.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 80.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8 | 60.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6 |
| Reasoning (high) | 81.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8 | 65.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2 |
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra: Overview
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.
Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.
GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.
GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 80.1% (#10 of 69) against 66.0% (#32 of 69) for GPT-5.6 Terra. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 80.8% against 60.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.010. Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-5.6 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.5s per inference against 11.0s. 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.