Provider comparison

Gemini vs GPT

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

How we compared them
Model against model

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.

Where the answer is clearest
Four tests worth reading first

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 line-ups
What each provider ships

The 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.

Spec
Gemini (Google)
GPT (OpenAI)
Why it matters
Models we have tested
Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra, Sol and Luna, plus GPT-5.5 on the earlier pages
A provider is a line-up rather than one model, so an answer only means something once it names which model you get
Context window
1,048,576 tokens on both Gemini models we tested67
1,050,000 tokens on every GPT model we tested123
Either one holds a brief, a research pack and a long draft in one call, so the difference decides nothing61
Max output
65,536 tokens on both67
128,000 tokens on the GPT-5.6 models123
This is the row that decides whether a long draft and its notes come back in one pass or two61
List price range
From $0.75 in / $3.75 out per million on 3.6 Flash at a promotional rate through Dec 31 2026 to $2 in / $12 out on 3.1 Pro up to 200,000 input tokens5
From $0.20 in / $1.20 out per million on Luna to $4 in / $20 out on Sol at OpenAI's promotional rate, with Terra at $2 in / $12 out between them123
The ranges overlap and the least expensive model of the eight we tested is a GPT one, so the pick inside each line-up decides the bill53
Long-context pricing
No separate rate published on 3.6 Flash, and $4 in / $18 out per million above 200,000 tokens on 3.1 Pro5
A higher rate above 272,000 input tokens on every GPT model we tested, from $0.40 in / $1.80 out on Luna to $8 in / $30 out on Sol123
One line-up re-prices the whole request above a threshold and the other does not, which changes the arithmetic on a large source pack51
Inputs
Text, images, audio, video and PDF67
Text and images1
A recorded meeting or a scanned page needs a transcription or extraction step first on one side and not on the other61
Length and effort control
Thinking levels from minimal through high, with length asked for in the prompt11
Effort from none through max, plus a text.verbosity setting that fixes length separately from reasoning4
A house template is easier to hold when length is a setting rather than an instruction that can be lost across a long document set114

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.

Head to head
Where the evidence separates models

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.

Dimension
Better choice
Why the edge exists
Best evidence
Deciding what a document should argue
GPT-5.6 Terra
An independent composite across knowledge, reasoning and coding, which is directional for structuring work rather than a grade on it
57 against Gemini 3.6 Flash's 52 on the capability index89
Returning a long document in one pass
GPT-5.6 Terra
Twice the output ceiling, which decides whether the draft and its notes come back together
128,000 output tokens against 65,53616
Reading a recording or a scanned page
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Audio, video and PDF go in directly, so a recording does not need a transcription step first
Text, images, audio, video and PDF against text and images61
Cost at volume
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Lower on input and output than Terra at the rate billed today, and with no separate rate above a threshold where Terra re-prices the whole request
$0.75 and $3.75 against $2 and $12 today, at Gemini's promotional rate51
Cost at the low end of both line-ups
GPT-5.6 Luna
The least expensive model of the eight on this page, and it stays under Gemini 3.6 Flash even above its own threshold
$0.20 in / $1.20 out per million, and $0.40 in / $1.80 out above 272,000 input tokens, against $0.75 and $3.7535
Interactive speed
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Faster measured output, which shows up as soon as a person is waiting on the answer rather than reading it later
About 210 output tokens per second against 12010

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.

Everything we tested
The other four articles

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.

Language and translation

Notes and presentations

What this cannot tell you
The limits of everything above

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.

Run the comparison yourself
In one place instead of two

One workspace makes the day-to-day version of this easy. You send a brief to each model, read the answers next to each other, and hand the work from one to the other without setting anything up twice.

Try it on three jobs you already have: a PDF whose tables have to come out intact, a pile of survey comments that has to become a theme list, and a dataset question that has to become an answer someone can check. Paste the source material in once, put the same request in front of the latest Gemini and GPT models, and keep going with whichever answer is closer instead of starting over for a second opinion.

The same memory then follows the team, over the latest GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok models and many more, all in one place, with retired models turned off and new ones added as they ship13.

Team memory

Shared across everyone and every model.

Project memory

Scoped to a campaign or document set.

Personal memory

Your own working style, kept private.

Fair pricing
Pay per usage, not per seat

Upgrade as needed, and only pay for what you actually use

Save ~17% with the annual plan

Pro

$50/ month

Perfect for small and medium teams

Unlimited users & infinite memory

Multi-LLM chats

Granular access control to models

EU data residency

Get started

Ultra

$200/ month

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

Get started

Enterprise

Get in touch

Unlimited Credits

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

Book a call

30-days money back guarantee

Frequently asked
questions

Neither, on the evidence we have. Eight tests on this site put one provider's model against the other's, and the answer moves with the job: the GPT models lead on structuring an argument and on returning a long document in one pass, and the Gemini models lead on the range of input they accept and on generation speed. A provider is a line-up of models rather than a single product, so the question only becomes answerable once a job and a pair of models are on the table.

Two things that show up in daily work. They take audio, video and PDF pages as input directly, where the GPT models we tested take text and images, so a recording does not need a transcription step first. And Gemini 3.6 Flash generated at about 210 output tokens a second against 120 for GPT-5.6 Terra in the measurement we cite, which a person waiting for the answer notices.

They return twice as much in one pass, at 128,000 output tokens against 65,536, which decides whether a long draft and its notes come back together. GPT-5.6 Terra also scores 57 against Gemini 3.6 Flash's 52 on the independent capability index, a real but narrow lead that is worth more on deciding what a document should argue than on writing it.

It is not the simple answer the pricing pages suggest. Gemini 3.6 Flash publishes no separate long-context rate, and every GPT model we tested moves the whole request to a higher rate above 272,000 input tokens, which reads as a straight win for Gemini. But GPT-5.6 Luna above that threshold is $0.40 in and $1.80 out per million, still under Gemini 3.6 Flash's $0.75 and $3.75 at any size. So the model you pick inside each line-up decides this, not the line-up.

No. Run the same prompt on both and compare the answers, or switch between them mid-conversation. You choose after reading both answers instead of guessing up front.

Related comparisons

Claude vs GPTGemini vs ClaudeGPT-5.6 Terra vs Gemini 3.6 FlashCompare AI models by task

Try them on your own work
One plan for the whole team

Send the same brief to the latest GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok models and many more, switch between them mid-conversation, and keep one shared memory across the team.

Get startedCompare the cost