Model Comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25)
vs. o4-mini (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, OpenAI
Recommended Pick
Op o4-mini (high) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
o4-mini (high)
71.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
o4-mini (high)
25.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than o4-mini (high).
Reasoning gap
o4-mini (high) leads Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25) by 23.7 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
o4-mini (high) leads Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25) by 1.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
o4-mini (high) wins 11 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
o4-mini (high)
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25) | Top Pick Op o4-mini (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $1.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $4.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.93/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Release Date | Jan 21, 2025 | Apr 16, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 159.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 28620ms |
| Latency | — | 28620ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 48.2 | 71.9 |
| Intelligence | 19.6 | 33.1 |
| Coding | 24.1 | 25.6 |
| Math | — | 90.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 70.1% | 78.4% |
| MMLU Pro | 79.8% | 83.2% |
| HLE | 7.1% | 17.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | 32.1% | 85.9% |
| MATH 500 | 94.4% | 98.9% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 90.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 50.0% | 94.0% |
| SciCode | 32.9% | 46.5% |
| LCR | — | 55.0% |
| IFBench | — | 68.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 55.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 15.2% |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
o4-mini (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 71.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
o4-mini (high) reaches a 25.6 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (Jan '25)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
o4-mini (high)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
