Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-4.1
Compare Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-4.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-4.1 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
GPT-4.1 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-4.1: Overview
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
GPT-4.1, released by OpenAI in April 2025, is a multimodal large language model that advances the GPT-4 series with major improvements in coding, reasoning, and instruction following. It accepts both text and images, supports tool calling and structured outputs, and features an expanded context window of up to ~1 million tokens—enabling it to process very large documents, multi-file codebases, or long conversations in a single prompt. Its knowledge is current through June 2024.
The GPT-4.1 family includes standard, mini, and nano variants, offering trade-offs between performance, cost, and latency. While parameter counts remain undisclosed, the series improves efficiency and responsiveness compared to GPT-4, making it suitable for both enterprise-scale tasks and cost-sensitive applications. Common use cases include software development, technical research, knowledge management, multimodal analysis, and high-context enterprise assistants.
Gemini 3 Flash vs GPT-4.1 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Flash | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Dec 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.500 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.00 | $8.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 74.63% | |
| Avg Response Time | 9.85s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 290 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 93.01% | |
| Avg Response Time | 12.40s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 160 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0010 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 94.9%(94/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 100%(10/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 86.7%(26/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 88.3%(53/60) | |
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