GPT-4o-mini vs Gemini 2.5 FlashBenchmark Comparison 2026

Objective comparison based on public benchmarks updated weekly: Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond, Chatbot Arena ELO, pricing and speed.

Overall winner (2026)

Gemini 2.5 Flash

5 of 7 criteria won

OpenAI

GPT-4o-mini

Intelligence Index

12.6

2 criteria won

View full profile

Google

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Winner

Intelligence Index

20.6

Coding Index

17.8

5 criteria won

View full profile

Detailed Comparison

CritérioGPT-4o-miniGemini 2.5 Flash
Chatbot Arena ELO
Intelligence Index (AA)12.620.6
Coding Index (AA)17.8
GPQA Diamond42.6%68.0%
Input price ($/1M tok)$0.15$0.30
Output price ($/1M tok)$0.60$2.50
Context window128K tokens1.0M tokens
Speed (tokens/s)57 tok/s207 tok/s

✓ = winner in this criterion • Source: Artificial Analysis, LMArena, official APIs • Updated weekly

Technical Specifications

GPT-4o-mini

Company
OpenAI
Context window
128K tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$0.15
Output ($/1M tok)
$0.60
Speed
57 tok/s
Release
Jul 2024
Multimodal
Yes
Open Source
No

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Company
Google
Context window
1.0M tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$0.30
Output ($/1M tok)
$2.50
Speed
207 tok/s
Release
May 2025
Multimodal
Yes
Open Source
No
Official website
Visit

When to use GPT-4o-mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Choosing between GPT-4o-mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash depends on your use case, budget and technical requirements. Below, a practical guide based on benchmark data and each model's specifications.

Use GPT-4o-mini when:

OpenAI · Multimodal

  • High-volume token projects — at $0.15/1M input tokens, the cost per call is low enough for production use at scale
  • Processing images, PDFs and visual documents alongside text — useful for analyzing contracts, reports with charts and mixed content
  • Long document analysis — 128K tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
  • API integration in SaaS applications — direct API access with documented SLA
View full GPT-4o-mini profile

Use Gemini 2.5 Flash when:

Google · Multimodal

  • Complex reasoning, math and advanced programming — reasoning models are optimized for problems requiring multiple logical steps
  • High-volume token projects — at $0.3/1M input tokens, the cost per call is low enough for production use at scale
  • Processing images, PDFs and visual documents alongside text — useful for analyzing contracts, reports with charts and mixed content
  • Applications with audio input or output — transcription, call analysis and voice assistants
  • Long document analysis — 1.0M tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
  • API integration in SaaS applications — direct API access with documented SLA
View full Gemini 2.5 Flash profile
SWEN Verdict: Gemini 2.5 Flash wins in more objective criteria in this comparison (5 vs 2). For most use cases, Gemini 2.5 Flash offers better aggregate performance — but GPT-4o-mini may be preferable if your project prioritizes high-volume token projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

GPT-4o-mini or Gemini 2.5 Flash: which is better?

Gemini 2.5 Flash wins in 5 of 7 criteria analyzed. Check the full table to choose based on your use case.

Where does this benchmark data come from?

Data is aggregated from Artificial Analysis (Intelligence Index, Coding Index) and Chatbot Arena/LMArena (ELO). Pricing and specs come from official APIs. Updated weekly.

What is the Intelligence Index?

The Intelligence Index is an aggregate score from Artificial Analysis that combines multiple academic benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, LiveBench, etc.) into a single rating. The higher the score, the more capable the model is at reasoning tasks.

Is GPT-4o-mini cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Yes. GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15/1M input tokens, while Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.3/1M tokens — 100% more expensive. For high-volume projects, GPT-4o-mini represents significant savings. Total cost also depends on output pricing and your application's usage pattern.

GPT-4o-mini or Gemini 2.5 Flash: which has a larger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger context window: 1.0M tokens vs 128K tokens. For long document analysis, extensive transcripts or full codebases, the larger context window is a decisive criterion.

Other Comparisons

claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v3-2claude-opus-4-7 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewclaude-opus-4-7 vs grok-4-3claude-opus-4-7 vs o4-miniclaude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-4gpt-5-5 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5 vs grok-4-3gpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-5-5 vs o4-minigpt-5-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-5-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5-pro vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs deepseek-v4-progemini-3-1-pro-preview vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs deepseek-v3-2deepseek-v3-2 vs grok-4-3deepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewdeepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-flash-litegrok-4-3 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs deepseek-v4-proo4-mini vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-flash-lite vs o4-minigemini-2-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-2-5-pro vs gpt-5-5gemini-2-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gpt-5-4-miniclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-3-flash-previewgpt-5-4-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-4-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgrok-4-20 vs claude-opus-4-7grok-4-20 vs gpt-5-5gpt-4o vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-4o vs gemini-2-5-progpt-4o vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-4o vs grok-4-3gpt-4o-mini vs claude-haiku-4-5gpt-4o-mini vs deepseek-v3-2o3 vs claude-opus-4-7o3 vs r1o3 vs gemini-2-5-pror1 vs claude-opus-4-7r1 vs gpt-5-5llama-4-maverick vs claude-opus-4-7llama-4-maverick vs gpt-5-5llama-4-scout vs claude-sonnet-4-6claude-sonnet-4-6 vs claude-opus-4-7claude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-2-5-proView all