Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 51.8 to 10.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs 25.0x less per output token ($0.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 9 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GPT-6.1 Sol: which to pick
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has none, 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).
- Shared results
- 9
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite only
- 21
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 89
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 10.4.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a GPQA Diamond result, 70.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a AIME result, 42.1%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has a MMLU Pro result, 79.1%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Design Arena: websites result, 1321.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Vals Index result, 63.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.0003, GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 46.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 6.8% against GPT-6.1 Sol 52.9%, 46.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite $0.40 against GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-6.1 Sol 1.05M.
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.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | Bars | GPT-6.1 Sol | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 5 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 9 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 96.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1753 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 88.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 96.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | Not measured | 43.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 39.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 59.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 55.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 50.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 2743.8 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1478 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1476 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1754 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1800 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1702 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 9.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 10.4 | 51.8 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.8 | 168.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1204 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | Not measured | 1242 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 83.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 88.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 73.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 21.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 38.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 6.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | Not measured | 59.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Robo-bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 28.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 60.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | Not measured | 24.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 36.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 70.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 92.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 46.4% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 75.4% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 62.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.8% | 52.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 95.4% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 98.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 94.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 68.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | Not measured | 54.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1463 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1489 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1465 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1356 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 42.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 89.5% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| AA Math Index | 53.3 | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 53.3% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 100.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 93.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | Not measured | 100.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 99.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1489 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1513 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 79.1% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 57.6% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 57.6% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 88.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 34.2% | 48.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 75.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 73.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1444 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1433 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1471 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1445 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 75.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1321 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1330 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1389 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1280 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1463 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1346 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 82.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 63.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 82.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 30.8% | 46.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 75.8% | 86.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| IFBench | 49.9% | Not measured | Only Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 55.7% | 84.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 96.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 62.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Furniture assembly | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1443 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1466 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1425 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1288 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1450 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1433 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1487 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1460 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1439 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1457 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1442 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1458 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1444 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1426 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1274 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1289 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1301 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | GPT-6.1 Sol | 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Google Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite | OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 22, 2025 | September 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $10.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 82.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 5 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite has none, 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).
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 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-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite vs GPT-6.1 Sol comparison based on?
9 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-6.1 Sol's on 5. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.