Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.6

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 4.6 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 Grok 4.6 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Pro
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.6
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.1% to 42.4%.

Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 66.0% (#40 of 61) against 68.7% (#33 of 61) for Grok 4.6.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0050 vs $0.0097 per sample) and faster (6.1s vs 17.5s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProGrok 4.6

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 29, 2026Pricing updated September 29, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4.6
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2025Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$2.00
Output $/1M$10.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.0%
68.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0050$0.0097
Avg speed / sample6.11s17.55s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.9%
$0.010
23.8%
±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9
$0.013
Object Detection (high)–
24.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1
$0.041
Counting (low)
52.7%
$0.0012
65.8%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3
$0.0079
Counting (high)–
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0.027
Identification (low)
93.8%
$0.0012
84.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0055
Identification (high)–
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.015
OCR (low)
88.8%
$0.0047
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1
$0.0091
OCR (high)–
91.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7
$0.023
Data Extraction (low)
84.5%
$0.0013
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0050
Data Extraction (high)–
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0090
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
61.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3
$0.0093
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
63.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2
$0.032

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.6: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Pro

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.

Grok 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.7% (#33 of 61) against 66.0% (#40 of 61) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.6 leads with 61.1% against 42.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0050 per sample against $0.0097. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 17.5s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.