OpenAI: GPT-5.1-Codex vs Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)
Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 4:36:01 PM.
Executive Summary
When evaluating OpenAI: GPT-5.1-Codex against Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image), the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) is approximately 84% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.
However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) leads with a statistical ELO score of 1481. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image), provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.
You are losing 84%
per million tokens by hardcoding OpenAI: GPT-5.1-Codex.
Stop guessing exactly which model to route to. Deploy the 0ms Intelligence Engine to automatically arbitrage this 84% gap in your production environment instantly.
Raw Technical comparison
Verdict
If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) wins out aggressively in pricing.
People Also Ask
Is OpenAI: GPT-5.1-Codex cheaper than Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)?
No. Google: Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.
Which model has the larger context window?
The OpenAI: GPT-5.1-Codex model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 400,000 token limit for document ingestion.