Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GPT-4o (2024-08-06)

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite leads GPT-4o (2024-08-06) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 10.4 to 7.7, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs 25.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 17 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.40
12
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
26.3
Output $/M
$10.00
5
vs boards won of 17 shared

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GPT-4o (2024-08-06): which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 128K tokens).

Shared results
17
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
13
GPT-4o (2024-08-06) only
41
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GPT-4o (2024-08-06) not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 15.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 42.1% against GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 14.0%, 28.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against GPT-4o (2024-08-06) $10.00 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-4o (2024-08-06) 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 Flash LiteBarsGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Ties
Coding11
Intelligence10
Agentic work01
Reasoning30
Math11
Knowledge42
General20
All shared boards125
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured23.1%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
SWE-bench LiteNot measured21.7%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)71.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)59.3%31.7%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%8.3%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1283Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1278Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
AA Intelligence Index10.47.7Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Epoch Capabilities Index133.8Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
τ²-Bench Telecom19.0%28.9%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)36.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
GPQA Diamond70.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)75.4%64.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)62.5%52.1%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%2.3%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured49.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
SimpleBenchNot measured17.8%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured6.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1264Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1241Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1277Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
AIME42.1%14.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured75.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.5%90.7%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
AA Math Index53.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)53.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured6.4%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured0.4%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MATH level 5Not measured53.3%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1285Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1283Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index42
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
MMLU Pro79.1%74.1%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.0%80.1%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
CorpFin (Vals AI)57.6%39.4%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%71.1%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.6%61.0%GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
MedQA (Vals AI)88.9%88.2%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
MedCode (Vals AI)34.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)75.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured26.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
MMLUNot measured84.3%Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1274Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1252Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1275Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1232Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)30.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)75.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
IFBench49.9%36.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)55.7%41.0%Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
DTBench62.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
LMCA18.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured
LMArena TextNot measured1283Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1267Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1274Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1065Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1297Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1262Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1254Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1257Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1234Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1218Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1263Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1269Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1272Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1279Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1283Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1290Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1267Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1072Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1009Only GPT-4o (2024-08-06) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 Flash LiteGPT-4o (2024-08-06)Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.0003Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.0075Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.0062Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.155Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite$0.024Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-08-06)$0.600Exceeds the context window

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-08-06)
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 22, 2025August 6, 2024
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$2.50
Output $/Mtok$0.40$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than GPT-4o (2024-08-06) for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite for output tokens 25.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 128K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GPT-4o (2024-08-06)?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4o (2024-08-06) costs $2.50 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GPT-4o (2024-08-06)?

Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GPT-4o (2024-08-06) comparison based on?

17 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o (2024-08-06)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next