Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 12B side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B: Overview
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.
Gemma 4 12B is an open-weight multimodal model from Google in the Gemma 4 family. It is intended for text and image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, OCR, captioning, and document understanding, with a smaller parameter footprint than the larger Gemma 4 variants.
This entry is connected to Roboflow Playground vision evals for comparison. No runnable Playground workflow is configured yet, so the model page is used for discovery and benchmark context rather than direct hosted inference.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 53.73% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 7.19s | 6.88s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0000 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 47.4%(9/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
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