GPT-4o vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare GPT-4o and GPT-5 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.
Compare GPT-4o 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
GPT-4o is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
GPT-4o vs GPT-5 Mini: Overview
GPT-4o (“omni”), released by OpenAI in May 2024, is a multimodal flagship model designed to unify text, image, and audio processing in a single system. Unlike earlier GPT-4 variants, GPT-4o supports real-time speech-to-speech interaction, enabling natural voice conversations alongside text and image reasoning. It features a context window of ~128,000 tokens for text input, with smaller output limits (commonly ~16K tokens), and has a knowledge cutoff of October 2023.
The model is optimized for efficiency and multilingual accessibility, supporting over 50 languages and covering ~97% of the world’s speakers. GPT-4o offers a cost-effective balance of speed and capability. It powers ChatGPT across free and paid tiers, making it widely accessible for applications in conversational AI, real-time translation, multimodal assistants, and global-scale communication tools.
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.
GPT-4o vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-4o | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2024 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 128K | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.50 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $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