Roboflow

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash and GPT-6.1 Sol side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Open Prompt.

Compare Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol on Vision Evals

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 80.8% to 69.8%.

Overall, Gemini 3.8 Flash averages 85.4% (#5 of 61) against 85.5% (#4 of 61) for GPT-6.1 Sol.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.0061 per sample) and faster (11.6s vs 14.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6.1 Sol

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6.1 Sol
OrganizationGoogleOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
Parametersundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$2.00
Output $/1M$3.75$10.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.4%
85.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0033$0.0061
Avg speed / sample11.65s14.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
69.8%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 69.3 to 70.8
$0.0041
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
Object Detection (high)
75.3%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.8 to 75.6
$0.021
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
Counting (low)
78.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 81.1
$0.0036
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
Counting (high)
79.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.024
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.0014
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
Identification (high)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0034
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
OCR (low)
87.3%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 88.2
$0.0024
92.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.5
$0.0064
OCR (high)
88.8%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.0 to 89.4
$0.064
91.7%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.2 to 91.9
$0.017
Data Extraction (low)
97.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 97.9
$0.0018
88.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 88.7
$0.0030
Data Extraction (high)
94.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9
$0.0089
90.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.7 to 90.7
$0.0037
Reasoning (low)
81.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.8 to 81.5
$0.0034
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
Reasoning (high)
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 85.4
$0.021
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol: Overview

Gemini 3.8 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash is a natively multimodal reasoning model in Google's Gemini 3 series, positioned as the speed and cost oriented Flash tier while targeting long-horizon software engineering, autonomous agents, and enterprise workflows. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents in a single request and returns text, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and an output limit of 65,536 tokens. Thinking is configurable at low, medium, and high levels, and the model supports function calling, code execution, structured outputs, context caching, search and Maps grounding, file search, and computer use in preview. Image generation, audio generation, and the Live API are not supported.

On vision oriented evaluations the model reports 86.2% on CharXiv Reasoning for chart and figure synthesis and 87.8% on LVBench for long video understanding in agentic mode, alongside 90.8% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and 61.6% on SWE-Bench Pro for coding. Following Gemini API conventions, it can localize objects by emitting bounding boxes as [ymin, xmin, ymax, xmax] integers normalized to a 0 to 1000 range, which supports prompt driven detection and grounding in addition to captioning, document parsing, and visual question answering. The knowledge cutoff is March 2026, though coverage in some domains reflects the January 2025 cutoff shared across the Gemini 3 family.

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

On the visual side, the model is evaluated on GDP.pdf, a benchmark that asks professional questions about complex PDF documents containing tables, charts, diagrams, and fine-print details, and on OSWorld 2.0, which measures agents operating graphical computer applications. OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#4 of 61) against 85.4% (#5 of 61) for Gemini 3.8 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 80.8% against 69.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.0061. Gemini 3.8 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output; GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.6s per inference against 14.3s. 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 object detection and image captioning in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.