Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 mini vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 61 and 54 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
OpenAIGPT-4.1 mini
61/100- ECI135.0
- Price$0.40 / $1.60
- Context1.05M
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2
54/100- ECI133.5
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against GPT-4.1 mini (61) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityGPT-4.1 miniCapabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
- Lowest priceGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 Flash and GPT-4.1 miniGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · GPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | GPT-4.1 mini | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 59 | 59 | 57 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 90 | 70 | 60 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 61 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 61/100 | 54/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | 135.0 (best) | 133.5 |
| ECI rank | #116 of 148 | #115 of 148 (best) | #119 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 65.9% (best) | 55.3% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 6.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 44.7% (best) | 8.5% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 12.7% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | $0.40 (best) | $3.00 |
| Output | — | $1.60 (best) | $15.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.10 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.70 (best) | $6.00 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official OpenAI API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,047,576 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | Yes | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gpt-4.1-mini | — |
| API providers | — | 24 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Apr 14, 2025 | Oct 22, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Apr 2024 | Apr 30, 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 mini or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against GPT-4.1 mini (61) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (54). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 mini or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.70 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 mini versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (8.6× as much). Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GPT-4.1 mini scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 of 148), Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (131.2–136.6 vs 124.3–136.7), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 mini and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GPT-4.1 mini leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Flash and GPT-4.1 mini have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,047,576 tokens), against 200,000 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4.1 mini and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
GPT-4.1 mini is the newest, released Apr 14, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, GPT-4.1 mini Apr 2024, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek · ECI 132.3
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- GPT-4.1 mini vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- GPT-4.1 mini vs QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 137.6
- GPT-4.1 mini vs DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek · ECI 135.9
- GPT-4.1 mini vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.2
