The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

Comparing Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Google · OpenAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini trade strengths across price, capabilities, and technical limits. The better choice depends on the workload.

On price, GPT-5.1 Codex Mini is roughly 2.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 3.7 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current benchmark, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemini 3.7 Flash

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

Choose GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

  • cost matters — it's about 2.2x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 3.7 Flash
Google
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
OpenAI
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.75 / M
$0.25 / M
Output price
$3.75 / M
$2.00 / M
Context window
1,048,576
400,000
Released
Aug 2026
Nov 2025
License
Proprietary
Proprietary

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Minidon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Playground indexes and blind preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini costs less

For input processing, Gemini 3.7 Flash ($0.75/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini ($0.25/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 3.7 Flash ($3.75/1M tokens) is 1.9x more expensive than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini ($2.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 3.7 Flash is more expensive than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Aug 26 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Input tokens$0.75
Output tokens$3.75
Best providerGoogle
OpenAI
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
Input tokens$0.25
Output tokens$2.00
Best providerOpenAI
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 3.7 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to GPT-5.1 Codex Mini's 400,000 tokens. GPT-5.1 Codex Mini can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 3.7 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Google
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
OpenAI
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
Input400,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Wed Aug 26 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.7 Flash was released on 2026-08-13, while GPT-5.1 Codex Mini was released on 2025-11-12.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is 9 months newer than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Aug 13, 2026

1 weeks ago

9mo newer
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

Nov 12, 2025

9 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 3.7 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-03-31, while GPT-5.1 Codex Mini's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 3.7 Flash's training data extends to 2026-03-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without GPT-5.1 Codex Mini's cutoff date.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Mar 2026

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 3.7 Flash is available from Google. GPT-5.1 Codex Mini is available from OpenAI.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.75/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.75/1M

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini

openai logo
OpenAI
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.7 Flash
✓ Preferred
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.1 Codex Mini.

Which is better, Gemini 3.7 Flash or GPT-5.1 Codex Mini?

Gemini 3.7 Flash (Google) and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini (OpenAI) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemini 3.7 Flash compare to GPT-5.1 Codex Mini in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.7 Flash scores MRCR v2 (8-needle): 97.0%, Harvey LAB-AA: 90.7%, CharXiv-R: 88.7%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 85.8%, LVBench: 85.4%. GPT-5.1 Codex Mini scores AIME 2025: 42.1%.

Is Gemini 3.7 Flash cheaper than GPT-5.1 Codex Mini?

GPT-5.1 Codex Mini is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 3.7 Flash costs $0.75/M input and $3.75/M output via google. GPT-5.1 Codex Mini costs $0.25/M input and $2.00/M output via openai.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini?

Gemini 3.7 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini supports 400K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 400K), input pricing ($0.75 vs $0.25/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.7 Flash and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini?

Gemini 3.7 Flash is developed by Google and GPT-5.1 Codex Mini is developed by OpenAI.

Related comparisons