Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs PaliGemma
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and PaliGemma side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs PaliGemma 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 PaliGemma: 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.
PaliGemma is a vision-language model released in May 2024 by Google, built by pairing the SigLIP-So400m vision encoder with the Gemma 2B language model. It is designed primarily as a compact, transfer-friendly base model for fine-tuning to downstream vision-language tasks, rather than as a chat-optimized assistant. PaliGemma draws architectural inspiration from the PaLI-3 model at Google Research, applying a similar encoder-decoder approach at a smaller and more accessible parameter scale.
PaliGemma accepts an image together with a text prompt and generates text output, supporting image captioning, visual question answering, optical character recognition, object detection, referring expression segmentation, and a range of related vision-language tasks when fine-tuned on task-specific data. The model is released at three input resolutions (224, 448, and 896 pixels), with higher resolutions providing stronger performance on tasks requiring fine visual detail such as OCR and document understanding. Google released pretrained (PT) checkpoints intended as fine-tuning bases, along with Mix variants that have been fine-tuned on a mixture of downstream tasks for direct use without additional training. PaliGemma is distributed under the Gemma license, a custom license from Google that permits commercial use subject to the terms of the Gemma Prohibited Use Policy. It was succeeded by PaliGemma 2 in December 2024, which extends the architecture to larger Gemma 2 language backbones at 3B, 10B, and 28B parameter sizes.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs PaliGemma Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | PaliGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | May 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 3B | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 53.73% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.19s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0000 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 47.4%(9/19) | |
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