Roboflow

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-6 Sol side-by-side.

Compare Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

OpenAI

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 96.2% to 80.4%.

Overall, Gemini 3.7 Flash averages 85.2% (#4 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.0065 per sample), while GPT-6 Sol is faster (8.1s vs 16.5s per sample).

Gemini 3.7 FlashGPT-6 Sol

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-6 Sol
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
ParametersUndisclosedundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750
Output $/1M$3.75
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.2%
80.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0031$0.0065
Avg speed / sample16.50s8.15s
By task
Object Detection (low)
70.5%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.4 to 71.5
$0.0047
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
74.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.3 to 75.0
$0.0089
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
Counting (low)
78.4%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 79.7
$0.0025
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
Counting (high)
79.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 81.1
$0.0056
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0013
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0027
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0021
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
OCR (low)
88.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.9 to 90.0
$0.0027
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
OCR (high)
89.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.3 to 89.9
$0.0093
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
Data Extraction (low)
96.2%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 96.9
$0.0014
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
Data Extraction (high)
95.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 95.9 to 95.9
$0.0023
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
Reasoning (low)
80.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.8 to 82.8
$0.0022
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
Reasoning (high)
81.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 82.8
$0.0050
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-6 Sol: Overview

Gemini 3.7 Flash

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-6 Sol

GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.

The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.2% (#4 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 96.2% against 80.4%. 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 $0.0031 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.1s per inference against 16.5s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.