Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4o (2024-05-13)

Gemini 2.5 Pro leads GPT-4o (2024-05-13) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 16.1 to 7.3, and Gemini 2.5 Pro costs 1.5x less per output token ($10.00 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 39 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemini 2.5 Pro Replace GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Coding
19.1
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$10.00
39
GPT-4o (2024-05-13)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
27.1
Output $/M
$15.00
0
vs boards won of 39 shared

Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-4o (2024-05-13): which to pick

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o (2024-05-13) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model AGemini 2.5 ProGoogle19.1/1003 independent benchmarks$0.64 per solved taskModel BGPT-4o (2024-05-13)OpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
39
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
51
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) only
5
Like-for-like categories
6 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 Pro 19.1 from 3 benchmarks, GPT-4o (2024-05-13) not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 44.8 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemini 2.5 Pro 84.7% against GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 6.3%, 78.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.00 against GPT-4o (2024-05-13) $15.00 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Pro takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 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 ProBarsGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Ties
Coding40
Intelligence10
Reasoning60
Math30
Knowledge50
General200
All shared boards390
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
SWE-bench Verified53.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev1226Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AA Coding Index33.324.2Gemini 2.5 Pro
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)54.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)80.1%33.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro
SciCode46.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench32.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GSO-Bench3.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
WeirdML54.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: coding14521297Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: software and IT14591297Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena WebDev: HTML1235Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1285Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
AA Intelligence Index16.17.3Gemini 2.5 Pro
Epoch Capabilities Index145.1Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
τ²-Bench Telecom54.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
METR time horizonsNot measured40.8%Only GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
GDPval23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
BALROGNot measured32.3%Only GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
DeepResearch Bench41.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vending-Bench 2$574Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
BrowseComp-Plus29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured50.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.4%52.6%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)22.5%1.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)85.3%48.9%Gemini 2.5 Pro
ARC-AGI41.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14551281Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: expert14521250Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14531293Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: diagrams1274Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: homework1281Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
AA Math Index87.7Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)87.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
OTIS Mock AIME84.7%6.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 324.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MATH level 5Not measured51.0%Only GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: math14501284Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: mathematical work14541284Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)63.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)60.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedCode (Vals AI)50.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.2%74.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro
MMLUNot measured84.2%Only GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: science14801295Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14761278Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: legal and government14801314Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: business and finance14391262Gemini 2.5 Pro
FACTS Benchmark Suite61.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
Design Arena: websites1167Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: UI components1137Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: game dev1111Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: data viz1222Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: 3D1080Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: all code categories1152Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index200
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)41.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
IFBench48.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DTBench82.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMCA34.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)83.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text14581300Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: instruction following14371278Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: creative writing14541291Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision12631137Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: English14581312Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: non-English14521283Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Chinese15071277Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: German14871283Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Japanese14611257Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Korean14341234Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: French14731304Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Spanish14741292Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Russian14611285Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: Polish14791365Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: multi-turn14531302Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: longer queries14491288Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: writing and language14541298Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14411289Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: English12611147Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: Chinese13001132Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMArena Vision: reading text1270Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: humor1262Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1304Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1283Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1265Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Document1421Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4o (2024-05-13)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 Pro$0.0063Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$0.013Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.092Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$0.295Fits in one request

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.350Fits in one request
GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$1.15Exceeds the context window

Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 ProOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 17, 2025May 13, 2024
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$1.25$5.00
Output $/Mtok$10.00$15.00
Coding index19.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.64Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than GPT-4o (2024-05-13) for coding?

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o (2024-05-13) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-4o (2024-05-13)?

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GPT-4o (2024-05-13) costs $5.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Pro only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GPT-4o (2024-05-13)?

Gemini 2.5 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4o (2024-05-13) comparison based on?

39 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o (2024-05-13)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next