Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5 Nano side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
GPT-5 Nano, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient model in the GPT-5 family. Like its larger counterparts, it is multimodal—accepting text and images, supporting tool use, structured outputs, and reasoning—but it is optimized for speed, low latency, and affordability. It features input and output token limits of roughly 272K and 128K tokens respectively, enabling large-context processing even at its compact scale. Its knowledge cutoff is around May 2024, slightly earlier than the full GPT-5 model.
GPT-5 Nano is well-suited for high-volume or cost-sensitive deployments such as mobile apps, embedded AI systems, or rapid-response APIs. While it offers less depth on complex reasoning and coding tasks compared to GPT-5 Mini or Pro, it retains core multimodal and agentic capabilities, making it an attractive option where efficiency and scale matter more than maximum performance.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GPT-5 Nano Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $0.400 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | 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 | 55.22% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | 6.58s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.8K |
| Median output tokens | 171 | 591 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 66.7%(6/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 79.04% | 69% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.39s | 6.15s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 122 |
| Median output tokens | 81 | 539 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0002 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 79.8%(79/99) | 64.6%(64/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 83.3%(25/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 70%(21/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 71.7%(43/60) | 73.3%(44/60) |
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