Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-4o mini
Gemini 3.6 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. | $0.75 | $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. | $3.75 | $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 | $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 | ||
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. | 39% | 2% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 7.3% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 32.2% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 37.3% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 49% | — |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | 63.9% | — |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 40.2% |
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. | 83% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1421 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Jul 18 2024 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.6 FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1GPT-4o minivsClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-4o minivsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.6GPT-4o minivsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-4o minivsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-4o minivsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsKimi K3GPT-4o minivsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads GPT-4o mini on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). GPT-4o mini is cheaper on both input and output: $0.15 vs $0.75 per million input tokens, and $0.60 vs $3.75 per million output tokens. GPT-4o mini shipped 733 days before Gemini 3.6 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 BullshitBench v2, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads at 39% vs GPT-4o mini at 2%.
Gemini 3.6 Flash was released by Google on Jul 21 2026.
GPT-4o mini was released by OpenAI on Jul 18 2024.
GPT-4o mini is cheaper on both input and output: $0.15 vs $0.75 per million input tokens, and $0.60 vs $3.75 per million output tokens. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.