Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, Image Captioning, and Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Overview
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.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $1.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 55.22% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 24.91s | 1.86s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 171 | 6 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | $0.0003 |
| Defect Detection | 60%(9/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 84.2%(16/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 79.04% | 89.96% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.39s | 1.32s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 81 | 10 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0003 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 79.8%(79/99) | 91.9%(91/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 100%(30/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 71.7%(43/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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