Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs 15.0x less per output token than Gemini 3.5 Flash ($0.60 vs $9.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 39 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle
Coding
39.8
Overall
63.8
Output $/M
$9.00
39
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
0
vs boards won of 39 shared

Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18): which to pick

Only Gemini 3.5 Flash has a coding score, 39.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) for output tokens 15.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $9.00 per million).

Shared results
39
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
73
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) only
7
Like-for-like categories
5 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 3.5 Flash 39.8 from 4 benchmarks, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 56.8 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemini 3.5 Flash 95.6% against GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 6.9%, 88.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.5 Flash $9.00 against GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) $0.60 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.5 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 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 3.5 FlashBarsGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Ties
Coding30
Reasoning70
Math40
Knowledge50
General200
All shared boards390
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured3.6%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena WebDev1499Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)87.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)78.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)6.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)48.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Code migration (Vals AI)26.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)74.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)52.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SciCode53.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)46.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
WeirdML62.6%11.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash
ALE-Bench911.0Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding14931290Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT14941291Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena WebDev: React1495Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1522Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1504Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SciCode12.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
AA Intelligence Index33.6Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Epoch Capabilities Index154.9Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1202Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1197Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1174Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1185Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1098Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: agents building games1180Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1093Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1154Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)21.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)30.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)63.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
τ²-Bench Telecom95.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
APEX-Agents27.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
BALROGNot measured17.4%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,396Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
GPQA Diamond92.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)88.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)92.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)92.8%37.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash
ARC-AGI92.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
ARC-AGI-272.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SimpleBench76.7%10.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash
Chess puzzles45.0%3.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash
Mystery game puzzles32.0%12.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash
EBR-bench4.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
VPCTNot measured34.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14881267Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert14951234Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14831278Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: diagrams1323Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: homework1330Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
OTIS Mock AIME95.6%6.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 362.8%0.7%Gemini 3.5 Flash
FrontierMath, tier 426.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
ProofBench31.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
MATH level 5Not measured52.6%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: math15041267Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work14951271Gemini 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
MMLU Pro89.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)64.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
MedCode (Vals AI)55.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SimpleQA Verified66.2%8.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash
MMLUNot measured76.7%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
GeoBenchNot measured64.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: science14951286Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14831282Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government14881305Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance14671265Gemini 3.5 Flash
FACTS Benchmark Suite63.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Design Arena: websites1267Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI components1269Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: game dev1263Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: data viz1236Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3D1243Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categories1266Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVG1253Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1254Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index200
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)59.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
SAGE (Vals AI)49.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)76.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Vals Multimodal Index62.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
IFBench76.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
DTBench94.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMCA47.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured67.2%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Surface Evolver Bench58.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Text14821286Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following14671258Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing14701268Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision13081066Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: English14811301Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English14751266Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese15271265Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German14941272Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese14861216Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Korean14481195Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: French14901297Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish14801276Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian14931275Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish15161244Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn14811285Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries14831289Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language14781282Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14591253Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: English13051072Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: Chinese13771033Gemini 3.5 Flash
LMArena Vision: reading text1317Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: humor1321Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1301Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
LMArena Document1463Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.5 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)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 3.5 Flash$0.0060Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.0004Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash$0.102Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.0093Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash$0.390Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 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 3.5 Flash and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.5 FlashOpenAI GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMay 19, 2026July 18, 2024
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$1.50$0.15
Output $/Mtok$9.00$0.60
Coding index39.8Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it40
Cost per solved task$1.21Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) for coding?

Only Gemini 3.5 Flash has a coding score, 39.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) for output tokens 15.0x cheaper ($0.60 vs $9.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)?

Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $9.00 per million output tokens; GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 3.5 Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)?

Gemini 3.5 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) comparison based on?

39 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemini 3.5 Flash's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next