Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1
Too close to call on our weighted score (Gemini 2.0 Flash 65, GPT-4.1 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
OpenAIGPT-4.1
63/100- ECI136.8
- Price$2.00 / $8.00
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Gemini 2.0 Flash 65/100, GPT-4.1 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GPT-4.1 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityGPT-4.1Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4.1 136.8 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceGPT-4.1GPT-4.1 $3.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextAbout the sameGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · GPT-4.1 1,047,576 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GPT-4.1: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | GPT-4.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 59 | 61 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 90 | 70 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 63/100 |
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-4.1OpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | 136.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #116 of 148 | #111 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 66.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 6.0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 38.3% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 48.5% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 31.1% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $2.00 |
| Output | — | $8.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.50 |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $3.50 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official OpenAI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,047,576 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gpt-4.1 |
| API providers | — | 25 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Apr 14, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Apr 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$36.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash or GPT-4.1?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Gemini 2.0 Flash 65/100, GPT-4.1 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GPT-4.1 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash or GPT-4.1?
GPT-4.1 is cheaper at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.50 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 versus . Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GPT-4.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4.1 136.8 (#111 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.6–138.4 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 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GPT-4.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Their context windows are effectively the same size: Gemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 and GPT-4.1 1,047,576 tokens. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, GPT-4.1 up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GPT-4.1 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 and GPT-4.1 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
GPT-4.1 is the newest, released Apr 14, 2025. Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, GPT-4.1 Apr 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
- Add Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Three-way comparison
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic · ECI 133.5
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- 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 vs Qwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 138.5
- GPT-4.1 vs Claude Sonnet 3.7Anthropic · ECI 141.2
