Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GPT-5.4 nano
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 nano's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 2 categories and GPT-5.4 nano in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GPT-5.4 nano leads 41.8 to 32.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 18.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 36.9% for GPT-5.4 nano.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.20 / $1.25 for GPT-5.4 nano.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 36.4 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2026-03-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 400K |
| Max output | 66K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $1.25 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#167), GPT-5.4 nano: 43.1 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 49.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1404 |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | 1,005 |
| SciCode | — | 46.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 27.8 (#89), GPT-5.4 nano: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 21.5 (#196), GPT-5.4 nano: 23.8 (#159)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | 39.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1380 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 80.3% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 36.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.93 | 145.78 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 5.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 51.5% |
| CritPt | — | 9.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 30% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 9% |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.3 |
Math GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 35.5 (#144), GPT-5.4 nano: 40.7 (#76)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1406 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 87.8% |
| ProofBench | — | 5% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 25.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 6.3% |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.1 (#206), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.8 (#94)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | 3.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1397 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 78.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 11.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.6 (#109), GPT-5.4 nano: 36.0 (#73)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | 1196 |
| VPCT | 30% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.5 (#129), GPT-5.4 nano: 48.8 (#136)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1391 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1390 | 1368 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1342 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1321 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1368 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.2 (#163), GPT-5.4 nano: 72.1 (#139)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1366 | 1362 |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.4 nano leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#257), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#131)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1365 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 57.0 (#130), GPT-5.4 nano: 55.9 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1372 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1366 | 1313 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1367 | 1382 |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 36.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 nano's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 nano lists at $0.20 and $1.25.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or GPT-5.4 nano better for coding?
GPT-5.4 nano scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.1 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GPT-5.4 nano share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 nano has 40.