Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, OCR, Image Captioning, and Open Prompt.
Compare Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5 Mini 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 Pro is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5 Mini: Overview
Gemini 3 Pro is Google DeepMind’s flagship multimodal frontier model, built for high-accuracy reasoning and large-scale context understanding across text, images, audio, video, code, and documents. It delivers major gains over Gemini 2.5 Pro, supported by a 1M-token window and strong performance on Google-reported benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond, MMMU-Pro, and Video-MMMU.
The model excels at structured outputs, tool use, and agentic coding, enabling complex multi-step workflows and analysis of entire books, codebases, or long videos in a single prompt. Positioned as Google’s top production model, it balances advanced reasoning with broad multimodal capabilities, making it well suited for research assistants, automation agents, coding systems, and enterprise-scale document and media analysis.
GPT-5 Mini, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is a mid-tier variant of the GPT-5 family that balances cost, speed, and capability. It is multimodal, supporting both text and image inputs, and offers a substantial input context window of ~400,000 tokens with output lengths up to ~128,000 tokens. While less powerful than the full GPT-5, it inherits its safety tuning, instruction-following improvements, and multimodal reasoning, making it a practical choice for developers who need large context handling without the expense of premium models.
GPT-5 Mini is optimized for affordability while retaining strong reasoning performance. Benchmarks show it outperforming earlier models such as GPT-4o on many multimodal and medical VQA tasks, though it lags behind GPT-5 on the most complex problems. Ideal use cases include prototyping, scalable content generation, document analysis, and mid-range reasoning tasks where efficiency and context capacity matter more than top-tier accuracy.
Gemini 3 Pro vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3 Pro | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.00 | |
| 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 | 73.13% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.72s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 143 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0006 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 89.5%(17/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 76.86% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.63s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 105 | |
| Median output tokens | 209 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 72.7%(72/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 78.3%(47/60) | |
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