Eight tests on this site put a Gemini model against a GPT model. This page says what they found, what the two line-ups cost, and which one to open for the job you have.
Aug 26, 2026 · 7 min read
We make no claim that one of these two providers is better. Each provider ships a line-up, and the answer changes with the model and with the work.
Eight articles on this site put a Gemini model against a GPT model on a named job, and one of them is a parent page carrying a full head-to-head on the pair we tested most. The cards below open the four with the clearest answers, and the index further down lists the rest. Where the public evidence is thin the pages say so rather than filling the gap with a verdict.
Underneath the cards are the facts that do not move with the job: what each line-up holds and costs, then the dimensions where a graded board or a documented capability separates two specific versions. This is the pairing where those constants pull hardest in opposite directions, since one line-up takes more kinds of input and the other returns more in one pass.
One thing to be clear about before the tables. Every test behind this page ran through the providers' APIs in one neutral setup. It is not a comparison of the apps around them, so a file upload, a browser extension or a spreadsheet add-on is not part of anything here.
Each card names a job we put the two providers' models through, says which model took it and why, and opens the article behind that answer. The method is the same in all four: one prompt, one setup, and score what comes back before editing it.
The matchup we tested deepest, with a full head-to-head behind it. Terra decides what a document should argue and returns twice as much in one pass. Gemini 3.6 Flash costs well under it, takes more kinds of source file and generates about twice as fast.
Learn moreGPT-5.6 Sol when the table is messy and keeping every row aligned matters most, on the closest exact-model document benchmark. Gemini 3.1 Pro for clean regular tables at volume, since it costs less than half Sol's rate and has strong direct extraction results of its own.
Learn moreGemini 3.6 Flash when one run has to cover a large body of comments without losing a rare theme. GPT-5.6 Luna at every batch size we priced, and the natural pick once the comments are already split into batches and cost per run is the constraint.
Learn moreGPT-5.5 where the work leans on code, exact arithmetic and structured office files. Gemini 3.1 Pro on very large datasets, mixed media like charts and video, and cost at high volume. Many teams explore with one and hand the final calculation to the other.
Learn moreThe published figures behind every test on this page, at the level of the line-up rather than one version. Where the models differ from each other, both ends are named.
Figures from Google and OpenAI documentation, as cited on the articles behind this page. The Gemini 3.6 Flash rates are promotional through December 31 2026, and Sol's are OpenAI's current promotional price rather than its list price.
These rows sit underneath the jobs above rather than competing with them. Each one compares two named versions on a dimension that holds whatever the job is, because that is the level the evidence exists at. A provider-level version of this table would be a guess.
The index scores were read at each model's top setting, so they move with the effort you actually run. Gemini 3.1 Pro is not in this table: it is still published as a preview model with no shutdown date announced, so a graded figure on it may not describe what ships12.
Every remaining article on this site that puts a Gemini model against a GPT model, grouped by the kind of work rather than by version. The four above are not repeated here.
Every figure here is published and every verdict is attached to a job somebody tested. That still leaves three things this page cannot do for you.
Gemini's advantage on price is dated: the rates it is billed at today run to December 31 2026 and Google publishes higher ones from January. Half of the Gemini tests behind this page are on a model still labeled preview, with no shutdown date announced, which is a real constraint for a team that cannot deploy one. And the capability index above is a composite rather than a grade on your work, so treat a five-point gap as a direction and not a margin.
Playgram is not the right buy for everyone either. If one person needs one model and nothing else, a single vendor subscription is simpler and cheaper than a workspace built for a team.
The safest last step is to test the shape of your own material rather than a generic prompt from the internet. A fair test needs the same setup on both sides: the same sources, the same prompt and the same place to run them, so the result reflects the models and not the tool around them. In practice that is harder than it sounds, because most teams end up running one model in one app and the other somewhere else on a separate subscription, which tilts the comparison before the first answer arrives. The cleaner the setup, the more the difference you see is really one model against the other.
Upgrade as needed, and only pay for what you actually use
Save ~17% with the annual plan
Pro
Perfect for small and medium teams
Unlimited users & infinite memory
Multi-LLM chats
Granular access control to models
EU data residency
Ultra
Best for large, growing teams
Unlimited users & infinite memory
Multi-LLM chats
Unlimited use of DeepSeek V4 Flash
Granular access control to models
Choose US or EU data residency
Enterprise
Get in touch
For organizations with advanced needs
Unlimited users & SSO
Priority Support
Unlimited use of DeepSeek V4 Flash
Granular access control to models
Choose US or EU data residency
30-days money back guarantee