Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3 Pro 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 Pro 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
Gemini 3 Pro is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro: 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 Pro is Google DeepMind’s flagship multimodal frontier model, built for high-accuracy reasoning and large-scale context understanding across text, images, audio, video, code, and documents. It delivers major gains over Gemini 2.5 Pro, supported by a 1M-token window and strong performance on Google-reported benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond, MMMU-Pro, and Video-MMMU.
The model excels at structured outputs, tool use, and agentic coding, enabling complex multi-step workflows and analysis of entire books, codebases, or long videos in a single prompt. Positioned as Google’s top production model, it balances advanced reasoning with broad multimodal capabilities, making it well suited for research assistants, automation agents, coding systems, and enterprise-scale document and media analysis.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 3 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| 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) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 79.04% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.39s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 81 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 79.8%(79/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 71.7%(43/60) | |
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