ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1 mini

Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 61 and 54 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.0 Flash

    Released Dec 11, 2024

    65/100
    • ECI134.7
    • Price—
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.0 Flash

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    54/100
    • ECI133.5
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2

  3. OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    61/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 mini
01 — Verdict

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 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.0 FlashClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2GPT-4.1 mini
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%595759
Inputs & features20%906070
Context window13%613261
Overall100%65/10054/10061/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1 mini specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.0 FlashGoogleClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2AnthropicGPT-4.1 miniOpenAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)134.7133.5135.0 (best)
ECI rank#116 of 148#119 of 148#115 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—55.3%65.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics——6.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—8.5%44.7% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions——12.7%
Price per million tokens
Input—$3.00$0.40 (best)
Output—$15.00$1.60 (best)
Cached input——$0.10
Blended (3:1)—$6.00$0.70 (best)
Long-context rate—Same rateSame rate
Price source—Median of 1 providersOfficial OpenAI API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)200,000 tokens1,047,576 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens8,192 tokens32,768 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesYes
PDFsYesYesYes
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryProprietary
API model ID——gpt-4.1-mini
API providers—124 (best)
ReleasedDec 11, 2024Oct 22, 2024Apr 14, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJun 2024Apr 30, 2024Apr 2024
03 — Cost

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—
  • Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 or GPT-4.1 mini?

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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 or GPT-4.1 mini?

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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and GPT-4.1 mini 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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs; GPT-4.1 mini 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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and GPT-4.1 mini 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, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 2024, GPT-4.1 mini 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons