Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs o1
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 150× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scores higher in 4 categories and o1 in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 33.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 47.2% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and 83.3% for o1.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 37.0 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2025-06-17 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Max output | 66K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 33 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 35.2% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1373 | 1367 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 325.9 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 36.9% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
Reasoning o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1377 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 62.8% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 18.1% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.94 | 141.91 |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| Omni-MATH | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1373 | 1361 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.7% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.9% | — |
Multimodal o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114), o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1198 | 1168 |
| VPCT | 30% | 37% |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1369 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1404 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1388 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1389 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1359 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1396 | 1345 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
| IFEval | 81% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 47.2% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1378 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1379 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1367 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1366 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| WildBench | 81.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better than o1?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 150× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or o1?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and o1 share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.