Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 3 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro: Overview
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
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 Pro vs Gemini 3 Pro Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| 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 | 70.15% | |
| Avg Response Time | 11.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 565 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0060 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.91s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 290 | |
| Median output tokens | 323 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0036 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 78.8%(78/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 73.3%(22/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
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