Gemini 3.0 FlashvsGPT-4o mini
Gemini 3.0 Flash | GPT-4o mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.15 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $0.60 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.075 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.15Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.60Azure |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.4% | 40.2% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 2% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 49.6% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 78% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 58% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 62% | — |
ToolathlonGeneral tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 33.7% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 33.6% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.1% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 42.6% | — |
GDPval-AAKnowledge work — Measures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1204 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 81.2% | — |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 0% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 67.2% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 22.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Dec 17 2025 | Jul 18 2024 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 FlashvsClaude Opus 5GPT-4o minivsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.0 FlashvsMuse GlimmerGPT-4o minivsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.0 FlashvsGrok 4.6GPT-4o minivsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.0 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-4o minivsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.0 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-4o minivsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.0 FlashvsKimi K3GPT-4o minivsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Flash leads GPT-4o mini on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Only GPT-4o mini has a verified first-party API price: $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Flash. GPT-4o mini shipped 517 days before Gemini 3.0 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On GPQA Diamond, Gemini 3.0 Flash leads at 90.4% vs GPT-4o mini at 40.2%.
Gemini 3.0 Flash was released by Google on Dec 17 2025.
GPT-4o mini was released by OpenAI on Jul 18 2024.
Gemini 3.0 Flash leads on GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.0 Flash 90.4% vs GPT-4o mini 40.2%.
Only GPT-4o mini has a verified first-party API price: $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Flash. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.