Google Gemini
- Manyanshi Joshi
- Sep 17
- 15 min read
Google Gemini is Google’s family of next-generation AI models, developed by Google DeepMind. It's designed to be a direct competitor to OpenAI's GPT-4 and is intended to power a wide range of applications—from chatbots and productivity tools to advanced research and coding assistants.
Here’s a breakdown of the most important things to know:
🔍 What is Google Gemini?
Gemini is Google's multimodal large language model (LLM), meaning it can handle text, images, audio, and video inputs and outputs. It’s the successor to Google’s earlier models like PaLM 2 and is a core part of Google’s AI strategy across its products.
🧠 Gemini Model Variants
There are several tiers of Gemini models optimized for different use cases:
Gemini Nano – Lightweight, runs on-device (like in Pixel phones).
Gemini Pro – Mid-tier, used in cloud applications like Google Bard and Workspace tools.
Gemini Ultra – Most powerful version, used for complex reasoning and multimodal tasks.
🚀 Key Features
Multimodal Capabilities: Understands and processes images, video, and audio alongside text.
Better Reasoning & Planning: Improved logical thinking, math, and coding skills.
Integration Across Google Products: Embedded in Search, Gmail, Docs, Android, and more.
Safety & Alignment: Focus on minimizing hallucinations and ensuring ethical AI behavior.
🤖 Gemini vs GPT-4
Feature | Google Gemini (Ultra) | OpenAI GPT-4 (Turbo) |
Multimodal | Yes (natively multimodal) | Yes (via plugins and tools) |
Performance | Comparable or better (per Google) | Very strong, leading in many benchmarks |
Integration | Deeply integrated with Google tools | Integrated into Microsoft ecosystem |
Code generation | Strong (Gemini 1.5 Pro especially) | Very strong (e.g., GitHub Copilot) |
📅 Timeline
December 2023: First release of Gemini 1.
February 2024: Launch of Gemini 1.5 series with massive 1 million token context window.
Ongoing: Continuous updates and deeper integration into Google products.
🔧 Where is Gemini Used?
Bard → Gemini: Google’s chatbot "Bard" was renamed to Gemini in 2024.
Google Workspace: Powers AI features in Gmail, Docs, Sheets.
Pixel Devices: On-device Gemini Nano for smart replies, summarization, etc.
Gemini App: A dedicated app on Android and web.
Here’s a detailed comparison of Google Gemini vs OpenAI GPT‑4, especially in terms of how they match up to different use‑cases. The right choice depends heavily on what you need. I’ll go through strengths, weaknesses, and which might be better for particular tasks.
🧮 Benchmarks & Quantitative Comparison
These metrics give a rough idea of performance—but keep in mind real‑world behavior depends on prompting, context, domain, etc.
Benchmark / Task | Gemini Ultra vs GPT‑4 Performance | Notes / Caveats |
MMLU (multi‑subject knowledge / comprehension) | Gemini Ultra: ~90.0% (Chain‑of‑Thought @32) vs GPT‑4 ~86.4%. Beebom+2The Times of India+2 | If you use advanced prompting (CoT etc.), Gemini pulls ahead. But with simpler prompt styles, the margin drops. Beebom+1 |
Big‑Bench Hard (complex reasoning, multi‑step) | Gemini Ultra ~83.6% vs GPT‑4 ~83.1%. Beebom+1 | Very close; slight advantage to Gemini in many reported cases. Beebom |
DROP (reading comprehension / reasoning over paragraphs) | Gemini ~82.4% vs GPT‑4 ~80.9%. Beebom | Close again. |
HellaSwag (commonsense reasoning) | GPT‑4 outperforms: ~95.3% vs Gemini ~87.8%. Beebom+1 | This is a key area where GPT‑4 remains strong. |
Mathematics (GSM8K, grade‑school / basic arithmetic) | Gemini ~94.4% vs GPT‑4 ~92.0%. Beebom+1 | Gemini leads here for more routine arithmetic. |
Harder Math (MATH benchmark, more complex problems) | Gemini ~53.2% vs GPT‑4 ~52.9%. The Times of India+1 | Very slight lead, but overall both struggle with very difficult math. |
Code generation (Python, etc.) | HumanEval: Gemini ~74.4% vs GPT‑4 ~67.0%. Natural2Code: Gemini ~74.9% vs GPT‑4 ~73.9%. Beebom+1 | Gemini often produces better code in some of these benchmark settings. |
Multimodal Tasks (vision, images, audio, video etc.) | Gemini Ultra tends to outperform or match GPT‑4V in many vision benchmarks: VQAv2, DOCVQA, OCR/TextVQA etc. Beebom+1 | GPT‑4V is still strong; for certain “commonsense visual reasoning” or ambiguous images, user feedback suggests variations. |
✅ Strengths of Each
Here are what Gemini and GPT‑4 seem to do particularly well, and areas where they lag.
Model | Key Strengths | Weaknesses / Challenges |
Gemini Ultra / Gemini (Google) | • Very strong in benchmarks for knowledge & comprehension when prompting is optimized. Beebom+1 • Excels at code generation vs GPT‑4 in many benchmark settings. • Stronger on many multimodal tasks (images, OCR, document understanding). • Possibly more “creative” or exploratory in certain generative content (stories, translations, etc.). • Google’s ecosystem integration might give advantages (e.g. for users heavily using Google tools). | • Commonsense reasoning (tested via benchmarks like HellaSwag) still an area where GPT‑4 often outperforms. Beebom+1 • Some concerns around hallucinations especially in domains where precise factual accuracy is needed (e.g. medicine). arXiv • Real‑world performance may depend heavily on how prompts are structured; without “advanced” prompting, behavior can be less optimal. • Access, cost, model versions might vary; context window limits etc. may not always deliver according to hype. |
GPT‑4 (OpenAI) | • Very strong commonsense reasoning and “robustness” in many ambiguous or conversational tasks. • More mature field testing, larger user base; hence certain kinds of prompt weaknesses (or “unexpected failures”) are better understood. • Good at minimizing hallucinations in many cases; more consistent factual behavior in tricky domains. • For some very hard reasoning tasks or creative style requests, users often find GPT‑4 more reliable. | • In many benchmarks, behind in code generation vs Gemini. • Multimodal capabilities (vision, images etc.) introduced later; may lag Gemini in certain image understanding benchmarks. • Prompt optimization is also important; sometimes needs more hand‑holding. • Might cost more depending on subscription or API usage; context windows might be smaller or more restrictive in some versions. |
🧐 Which One is Better Depends on Your Specific Needs
Here are some common use scenarios, and which model tends to be a better fit.
Use Case | Likely Better with Gemini | Likely Better with GPT‑4 |
Writing & Creativity (stories, translations, creative content) | Gemini, especially for creative expansions, fresh ideas, possibly more fluid/“interesting” output. | If you want safer, more conservative writing, or if style‑consistency and lesser risk of off‑topic drift matters. |
Coding / Dev Work | Gemini often leads in code benchmarks; if your tasks are standard or well‑defined code generation, Gemini might save effort. | If tasks are complex, require domain reliability, rigorous error handling, or long debugging sessions, GPT‑4’s maturity might give advantage. |
Multimedia / Vision / OCR | Gemini tends to do well, especially image interpretation, document reading etc. If your tasks involve visual input, Gemini may handle better. | GPT‑4V is also strong; for fine nuance or ambiguous visuals, GPT‑4 may be more tested in practice. |
Factual Accuracy / Critical Domains (health, law, science) | Caution: Gemini’s performance is good, but risk of hallucinations or incorrect inference is non‑trivial. Might need verification. | Likely safer, especially with fact‑checking and validated sources. GPT‑4 tends to be more conservative here. |
Prompt Flexibility | If you’re comfortable designing prompts, using chain‑of‑thought, etc., Gemini might unlock more. | If you prefer “works well with simpler prompts” and less need for prompt engineering, GPT‑4 is perhaps more forgiving. |
Cost / Access / Ecosystem | If you use Google tools, docs, etc., Gemini may integrate more smoothly. If Gemini offers more favorable pricing or within a package you already have, that’s a plus. | If you already use OpenAI tools or have plans/subscriptions etc., sticking with GPT‑4 can reduce switching cost. Also, API stability, community support etc. is strong. |
🔍 Practical Tips: Which to Choose for You
To pick between the two, consider:
Define your most important metric(s): Do you care more about creativity, correctness/factual accuracy, speed, cost, or multimodality?
Test with your actual prompts / domain: Benchmarks are great, but what matters is how they perform on your data. Try both (if possible) with your real tasks.
Prompt strategy matters: Gemini shows more gain when using advanced prompting (chain‑of‑thought, more examples, etc.). If you aren’t going to invest time in prompting, the advantages may shrink.
Safety / verification: For high‑stakes use, build in layers of checking. For instance, use the model for draft & generation, then use another tool or human review for verification.
Stay updated: Both models are evolving rapidly. What’s true now may shift. New versions, patches, improvements can change the trade‑offs.
You can access and use Google Gemini in several Google tools and platforms, depending on whether you're using it for personal productivity, coding, or enterprise use. Here's a complete guide on how to use Gemini in Google tools, step-by-step:
🔹 1. Gemini on the Web (Chatbot)
✅ Best for: General AI chat, coding, content generation, Q&A, images, etc.
Website: https://gemini.google.com
Login: Use your Google account to sign in.
Plans:
Free plan: Uses Gemini 1.0 Pro.
Gemini Advanced: $19.99/month via Google One. Gives you access to Gemini 1.5 Pro with a 1 million token context window (massive memory).
Features:
Text, image, and document support.
Multimodal input (text + image).
Export to Gmail, Docs, Sheets.
Code generation (with preview).
File analysis (PDF, Docs, CSV).
🔹 2. Gemini in Gmail
✅ Best for: Email drafting, summarizing threads, rewriting content.
How to Use:
Look for the ✨ "Help Me Write" button when composing an email.
You can say things like:
“Write a professional reply to this email confirming a meeting.”
“Summarize this long email thread.”
Requirements:
Available for Google Workspace users and Gemini for Google Workspace subscribers.
Some features may also be included with a Google One AI Premium subscription.
🔹 3. Gemini in Google Docs
✅ Best for: Writing assistance, summarization, rewriting, tone changes.
How to Use:
Open a Google Doc.
Click Tools > Help Me Write or use the ✨ Gemini button.
Prompts like:
“Write a business proposal for a client.”
“Make this paragraph more concise.”
🔹 4. Gemini in Google Sheets
✅ Best for: Data entry, formula generation, summaries, autofill.
How to Use:
Open a Sheet > Look for the “Help me organize” prompt or ✨ icon.
Use natural language like:
“Create a weekly content calendar.”
“Generate a sales dashboard with formulas.”
🔹 5. Gemini in Google Slides
✅ Best for: Slide content generation, image generation.
How to Use:
Open Google Slides > Tools > Help me visualize / Help me write.
Gemini can:
Generate presentation outlines.
Create AI-generated images directly into slides.
Rewrite slide text to improve tone or clarity.
🔹 6. Gemini on Android (App or Assistant)
✅ Best for: Quick answers, voice input, device control, mobile productivity.
How to Use:
Download Gemini app from the Google Play Store (replaces Google Assistant).
Or say “Hey Google” (if enabled) and interact with Gemini via voice.
Features:
Ask questions, summarize, send texts, generate content.
Device integration (calendar, maps, etc.).
On Pixel 8+, Gemini Nano runs on-device for fast performance and privacy.
🔹 7. Gemini for Google Workspace (Enterprise Tools)
✅ Best for: Teams, companies, education, enhanced data control.
How to Use:
Admins can enable Gemini features in the Google Workspace Admin console.
Integrated into:
Docs, Gmail, Sheets, Meet.
Advanced data protection & compliance tools.
Licensing:
Gemini for Workspace plans (formerly Duet AI) start at $10-$30/user/month.
🔹 8. Gemini for Developers (Vertex AI & APIs)
✅ Best for: Custom apps, backend integrations, coding.
How to Use:
Go to Google AI Studio
Or access via Vertex AI
Use Gemini 1.5 Pro via:
Python SDK
REST API
Notebooks & IDE plugins
🔹 9. YouTube, Search, and Other Google Services
✅ Gemini is embedded behind-the-scenes:
Search: AI-powered overviews (Search Generative Experience).
YouTube: AI-generated video summaries, search enhancements.
Chrome: "Help Me Write" in web forms, autofill.
✅ Summary: Best Ways to Access Gemini
Platform | Access Point | Best For |
Gemini Web App | Chat, images, coding | |
Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Slides | Workspace tools (with ✨ icon) | Productivity, writing |
Android App | Gemini app (Play Store) | Mobile use |
Enterprise | Gemini for Workspace | Teams, security |
Developers | AI Studio / Vertex AI | APIs, custom apps |
Here’s a breakdown of what is (publicly) known about Google Gemini’s architecture and performance benchmarks — how it’s built, what its design choices are, and how it stacks up in various tasks. Some things remain proprietary/undisclosed, so there are estimates or inferences in places.
🏗 Architecture & Design
Transformer‐based + Mixture of Experts (MoE)
Gemini is fundamentally built on the transformer architecture. But more recent versions (especially “Gemini 1.5” and up) use Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) modules. MoE means there are many “expert” sub-networks, and only relevant experts are activated for a given input. This improves efficiency (compute & memory) while allowing specialization. assets.thehansindia.com+3blog.google+3Google DeepMind+3
These “experts” help when models need to handle varied tasks (text, video, code, etc.), by letting different portions specialize. blog.google+1
Multimodality & Input Types
Gemini handles multiple input modalities: text, images, code, audio, video. DataCamp+3Ars Technica+3blog.google+3
Visual input is native: no external OCR required in many image and document benchmarks. Google DeepMind+3dsdanielpark.github.io+3News18+3
For video input, it treats video as a sequence of image frames, and these can be reasoned over with large context windows. Also audio is processed. blog.google+1
Large / Extended Context Window
One of the big architecture/performance features is context window size. Gemini 1.5 Pro, for example, has a context window of up to 1 million tokens in production. blog.google+2DataCamp+2
They’ve also tested beyond that (e.g. 10 million tokens) though perhaps not yet in production. blog.google
Efficiency in Training & Serving
Use of MoE allows the model to be more efficient, because it routes inputs via particular expert sub-networks rather than activating the whole huge network for every input. blog.google+1
Google uses its TPU infrastructure (TPUv4, TPUv5e, etc.) for training Gemini. These are custom accelerators optimized for large-scale model training. Medium+1
There has been innovation in how they manage “thinking budget” i.e. how much compute/memory is used per input depending on how complex the task is. The model can adaptively use more or less. Google DeepMind
Model Variants / Sizes
There are multiple tiers: Ultra, Pro, Nano etc. Each is optimized for different capacity / resource trade‑offs. Ultra is the largest, most capable; Nano designed for on‑device or smaller device constraints. Ars Technica+2Medium+2
The exact number of parameters for each variant is not always publicly disclosed in full detail. Some reports estimate in the hundreds of billions for larger models, but Google hasn’t always confirmed the exact count. Read Medium articles with AI+2Ars Technica+2
📊 Benchmark Performance
Here’s how Gemini (especially the Ultra / Pro tiers) performs on various benchmarks, and where it gains ground vs prior SOTA or GPT‑4.
Benchmark / Task | Gemini’s Performance | GPT‑4 / Prior SOTA | Key Notes |
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) | ~ 86.4% for GPT‑4 The Hindu+1 | This is one of the biggest headline wins: Gemini Ultra claims to be first to beat human experts on that. Ars Technica+1 | |
BigBench Hard (multi‑step reasoning etc.) | ~ 83.6% Ars Technica+1 | ~ 83.1% for GPT‑4 Ars Technica+1 | Slight advantage. |
DROP (reading comprehension over paragraphs) | ~ 82.4% Ars Technica+2The Hindu+2 | ~ 80.9% for GPT‑4 The Hindu+1 | |
GSM8K (Grade school math problems) | ~ 94.4% Ars Technica+1 | ~ 92.0% for GPT‑4 The Hindu+1 | |
MATH (more difficult math) | Performance is strong, slightly ahead or close to GPT‑4. Ars Technica+2The Hindu+2 | ||
HumanEval (Python code generation benchmark) | ~ 74.4% Ars Technica+1 | ~ 67.0% for GPT‑4 Ars Technica+1 | |
Natural2Code | Also higher for Gemini in many reported cases vs GPT‑4. Ars Technica+1 | ||
Image understanding / visual tasks / multimodal benchmarks | Gemini (Ultra / Pro) shows strong performance across image, document, OCR, chart/diagram understanding benchmarks. Zero‑shot in many cases. dsdanielpark.github.io+2News18+2 | ||
Long context / large input sizes | Very strong; e.g. in benchmarks with 128K context, also tested up to ~1 million tokens. blog.google+2Google DeepMind+2 |
⚠️ Caveats & Limitations
While Gemini’s reported performance is very strong, there are some things to be aware of:
Benchmarks vs real world: High benchmark scores don’t always translate into perfect reliability in all real tasks. Situations with ambiguous or contradictory information, or requirement for up‑to‑date knowledge, can still be challenging.
Cost & Latency: Very large models and huge context windows consume significant compute. There may be trade‑offs in inference time, cost, and efficiency, especially with Ultra or Pro versions. Sometimes smaller, more optimized models or pruning/quantization may be used, especially for on‑device versions (Nano). Public info on latency is less detailed.
Safety, Hallucination: As with all large LMs, hallucinations, errors in reasoning, or biases remain possible. Google does invest in safety testing, but it’s not perfect. blog.google+2Google DeepMind+2
Model size / transparency: Google doesn’t always publish exactly how many parameters in every variant, or the full training data, or all hyperparameters. Some claims (e.g. “first model to outperform human experts on MMLU”) are based on specific settings of the benchmark (e.g. number of shots, whether chain‑of‑thought reasoning is allowed, etc.). Ars Technica+1
Here are a balanced set of pros and cons of Google Gemini, based on publicly available evaluations, user reports, and research papers. Depending on how you intend to use it, some “pros” will matter more, and some “cons” might be deal‑breakers (or manageable).
✅ Pros of Google Gemini
Multimodal capabilities Gemini can work with text and other input types like images, audio, video. This allows richer interactions (e.g. “show me this image and ask question about it”, document + image analysis) that text‑only models can’t do as well. 33rd Square+2Google Cloud+2
Integration with Google ecosystem Because it’s from Google, it integrates well with Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Drive, Search etc. If you already use Google tools heavily, this is a strong advantage. Google Sites+2TechBloat+2
Strong performance on many benchmarks While not perfect everywhere, Gemini has shown good results in tasks involving comprehension, reasoning, code generation in many settings. It tends to do well when prompts are well designed. GuruHub+3arXiv+333rd Square+3
Large context windows & scalability Gemini has been designed (in its higher‑tiers) to handle large contexts, making it better for tasks where there is a lot of input (documents, long conversations etc.). 33rd Square+2TechBloat+2
Support for many languages It supports many languages—useful if you’re not using just English. thetechjournal.in+2TechBloat+2
Continuous improvement & safety efforts Google invests in safer AI, bias mitigation, responsible deployment. There’s research into errors, hallucinations, etc., and attempt to reduce them. 33rd Square+3Google Cloud+3arXiv+3
⚠️ Cons / Limitations of Google Gemini
Hallucinations / factual accuracy issues Even though performance is generally good, Gemini can still produce incorrect or misleading outputs, or overconfidently assert things that are wrong. In sensitive domains (medical, legal) this is a serious risk. GuruHub+3arXiv+3Google Cloud+3
Biases, fairness, and content moderation As with most large language & multimodal models, training data includes biased content. Ensuring that outputs are fair, non‑offensive, and ethically acceptable still remains an imperfect process. arXiv+2GuruHub+2
Resource and cost demands Running large models (especially in “Ultra” / Pro modes) requires a lot of compute; cost, infrastructure, latency can be higher. For smaller users, or real‑time applications, this can be a limitation. GuruHub+233rd Square+2
Prompt sensitivity & dependency To get the best out of Gemini, users often need to give well‑structured prompts, examples, etc. If prompts are vague or poorly formulated, results may degrade. The output can be inconsistent otherwise. be10x.in+2Appy Pie Automate+2
Availability and access limitations Some of the more advanced variants or features (e.g. highest capacity models, certain integrations) are not universally available to all users. There may be tiered access, geolocation or platform‑based restrictions. be10x.in+1
Privacy & data handling concerns As a cloud‑based service, using Gemini involves sending data to Google’s servers. For very sensitive/private information, this raises risk unless proper controls are in place. Also, transparency around what data is used in training or retained may not always be full. GuruHub+2UMA Technology+2
Explainability / transparency limitations Sometimes Gemini’s reasoning (why it responded a certain way) is opaque. For critical tasks, users might need clearer explanations than the model provides. 33rd Square+1
Competition & relative maturity Other models like GPT‑4, or domain‑specialized models (especially in medical or scientific domains), may still outperform Gemini in certain benchmarks or in certain tasks. For instance, in medical VQA (visual question answering) Gemini underperforms compared to some specialized models. arXiv
Here’s a rounded‑conclusion on Google Gemini — what it offers, where it shines, where you need caution, and whether it might be right for you.
✔️ Gemini in Summary
Google Gemini is a high‑capability, multimodal AI system that integrates tightly with Google’s ecosystem. It supports various modalities (text, image, audio, video), offers large context windows, access to real‑time or near‑real‑time data, and strong integration into tools like Gmail, Docs, Sheets, etc.
It’s especially appealing if you’re already inside Google’s productivity stack. The user experience tends to improve with well‑crafted prompts, and Gemini gives powerful assistance for tasks like drafting, summarization, content generation, code assistance, visual/document analysis.
⚠️ Key Limits & Risks
Accuracy & Hallucination Issues: Even though performance is strong in many benchmarks, Gemini still sometimes gives incorrect or misleading outputs. For important tasks (medical, legal, etc.) you can’t rely on it uncritically. arXiv+2Geekflare+2
Variability in Performance: Depending on region, version (free vs Pro vs Ultra), and task complexity, results may vary. Some tasks, especially those needing nuanced image understanding or very up‑to‑date knowledge, show Gemini lagging behind specialized models. arXiv+2Geekflare+2
Bias / Ethical / Moderation Challenges: As with all large AI models, there are biases in training data; also problems with how it handles sensitive content or warns/filters appropriately. arXiv+2Geekflare+2
Feature & Access Gaps: Best versions/models and advanced features are often gated behind paid plans or enterprise contracts. Some tools are still being refined; user reports say that things like document upload, summarization, etc. may work in some contexts but not others. Reddit+3IT Pro+3Google Sites+3
🎯 When Gemini is a Good Choice
Gemini is especially useful if:
You work a lot in Google tools (Workspace, Docs, Gmail, etc.), and want your AI assistant to be tightly integrated in your daily workflows.
You often need multimodal understanding (images & text together, analyzing documents or visuals).
You need large context capacity (working with long documents or large codebases).
You value real‑time search/fact‑checking and updated information.
You are okay verifying outputs, especially for sensitive tasks, and want to use Gemini as a “co‑pilot” rather than a final authority.
💡 When You Might Prefer Something Else
It may be better to consider alternatives when:
You need the highest possible reliability for critical domains (medicine, law, scientific research).
You need creative flexibility, or features not yet refined in Gemini (depending on region or version).
You want extensive third‑party plugin or integration support beyond Google’s ecosystem.
You’re very sensitive to cost, especially as premium Gemini features or context capacity may come with higher pricing.
🧭 Final Take
Gemini represents a major step forward in making powerful, multimodal AI more accessible and embedded in everyday tools. It is highly competitive, especially for productivity, document & content work, and for people who live in Google's ecosystem.
But it’s not perfect, and you’ll need to use it with awareness of its limitations—especially around accuracy, domain expertise, and premium feature access.
If I were to sum Gemini up in one sentence: “Gemini is a strong, versatile AI assistant, excellent for boosting productivity and multimodal tasks, particularly within Google’s universe—but not yet one to blindly trust in high‑stakes settings without oversight.”
Thanks for reading!!!
Comments