Florence-2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Compare Florence-2 and Gemini 2.5 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Florence-2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Florence-2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash: Overview
Florence-2, introduced by Microsoft Research at CVPR 2024, is an open-source vision-language foundation model designed to unify diverse computer vision tasks within a single sequence-to-sequence framework. Unlike traditional models that specialize in specific tasks, Florence-2 accepts both images and text prompts and outputs text for tasks such as captioning, object detection, segmentation, OCR, and region-based grounding. It comes in two sizes—Florence-2-base (~230M parameters) and Florence-2-large (~770M parameters)—and is trained on FLD-5B, a large dataset of ~126M images with ~5.4B annotations.
The model demonstrates strong zero-shot and fine-tuned performance, often rivaling larger vision-language systems while remaining lightweight and efficient. Released under the MIT license, all weights are publicly available, making it accessible for fine-tuning and deployment in applications like VQA, content tagging, accessibility, and research. Florence-2’s compact design, versatility, and openness position it as a practical alternative to larger proprietary multimodal models.
Gemini 2.5 Flash, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s production-ready, efficiency-focused model in the Gemini 2.5 family. It is multimodal, accepting text, images, video, and audio as inputs, with text as the primary output format. The model supports 1 million input tokens and up to 65K output tokens, enabling it to process very large contexts such as books, long video transcripts, or extensive datasets. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Designed as a price-performance leader, Gemini 2.5 Flash balances speed and reasoning power, making it suitable for everyday enterprise and developer use cases without the higher latency and cost of Pro models. It supports advanced workflows like function calling, code execution, search grounding, URL context ingestion, and structured outputs. While efficient and scalable, output length is still limited compared to its input capacity, and multimodal outputs (e.g. image or audio generation) remain restricted to specialized or preview variants.
Florence-2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Comparison Table
| Property | Florence-2 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Microsoft | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Jul 2025 |
| Context Window | — | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 230M | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| Open Vocabulary Object Detection | ||
| Phrase Grounding | ||
| Region Proposal | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 55.22% | |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 171 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology