Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 4 Maverick side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick: 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.
Llama 4 Maverick, introduced on April 5, 2025, is one of the first models in Meta’s Llama 4 family, designed as a natively multimodal model supporting text + image inputs with text outputs. It employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 128 experts, activating ~17B parameters per token out of a pool of ~400B total parameters. This design improves scalability, efficiency, and reasoning capacity. Maverick has a 1M-token context window, enabling it to handle large documents, extended conversations, and multimodal reasoning. Its knowledge cutoff is August 2024.
The model is released under the Llama 4 Community License and comes in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) versions. Maverick is widely deployed via Hugging Face, Google Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock, and Oracle Cloud, making it one of the most accessible large open-weight models. However, it outputs text only (no image/audio generation) and, while input capacity is huge, output limits are typically much smaller. The MoE design also raises hardware demands, as maintaining 128 experts requires significant compute resources, and Meta’s license introduces restrictions around commercial-scale use.
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 400B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $0.600 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | 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 | 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) | |
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