Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen

Gemini 4 Hydrogen: 87.3% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 of 69 models). We have not run Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score. Run both on your own image below.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemini 4 Hydrogen
Run to compare this model.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen Comparison Table

Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 4 Hydrogen
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Nov 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100No published price
Output $/1M$0.400No published price
Vision Tasks
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedNot listed
Document Question AnsweringSupportedNot listed
Image TaggingSupportedNot listed
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedNot listed
Promptable Concept SegmentationNot listedDemo
Both support 6 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
OverallNot evaluated
87.3%
Avg cost / sample–$0.0094
Avg speed / sample–13.23s
By task
Object Detection (low)–
81.0%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9
$0.016
Object Detection (high)–
83.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8
$0.022
Counting (low)–
83.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5
$0.0041
Counting (high)–
84.2%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8
$0.012
Identification (low)–
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0030
Identification (high)–
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.0039
OCR (low)–
86.7%
$0.0089
by category
Single value
78.7%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
93.6%
Text localization
83.9%
OCR (high)–
87.2%
$0.026
by category
Single value
80.9%
Transcription
95.3%
Structured JSON
93.1%
Text localization
83.7%
Reasoning (low)–
88.1%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7
$0.0046
Reasoning (high)–
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0
$0.013

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, released for general availability on July 22, 2025, is the most cost-efficient model in the Gemini 2.5 family, designed for high-volume and latency-sensitive tasks. It is multimodal, supporting text, images, video, audio, and PDFs as inputs, with text as its primary output. The model handles up to 1 million input tokens and generates outputs up to 64K tokens, making it suitable for large-scale document or media processing at low cost. It is built on a Sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with native multimodal support, though exact parameter counts are undisclosed.

Flash-Lite offers the lowest usage cost among Gemini 2.5 models. It introduces developer controls for “thinking mode,” allowing fine-tuning of reasoning depth vs. efficiency. It also integrates native tools such as code execution, search grounding, and URL context. While strong on translation, classification, coding, and general multimodal reasoning, it lacks support for image or audio generation in its stable release and is less capable than Gemini 2.5 Flash or Pro on complex reasoning-heavy workflows.

Gemini 4 Hydrogen

Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.