Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4 Mini
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-5.4 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4 Mini: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.
Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-5.4 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GPT-5.4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $4.50 |
| 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% | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | 74.63% |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | 7.87s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 565 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 78.9%(15/19) |
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