Roboflow

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7

Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 4.7 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 4.7 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 4.7
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals

Grok 4.7 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 64.2% to 42.4%.

Overall, Gemini 2.5 Pro averages 57.6% (#40 of 63) against 63.5% (#31 of 63) for Grok 4.7.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0051 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (6.8s vs 33.3s per sample).

Gemini 2.5 ProGrok 4.7

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyGemini 2.5 ProGrok 4.7
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodal—
Release DateJun 2025Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$1.25$2.00
Output $/1M$10.00$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedNot listed
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedNot listed
Multimodal VisionSupportedNot listed
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
57.6%
63.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0051$0.020
Avg speed / sample6.83s33.31s
By task
Object Detection (low)
33.7%
$0.010
40.4%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)–
41.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8
$0.028
Counting (low)
52.7%
$0.0012
61.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5
$0.011
Counting (high)–
60.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2
$0.017
Identification (low)
93.8%
$0.0012
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0063
Identification (high)–
80.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0.0093
OCR (low)
65.2%
$0.0046
63.6%
$0.023
by category
Single value
60.9%
Transcription
86.8%
Structured JSON
76.3%
Text localization
35.9%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
89.5%
Structured JSON
86.4%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
64.6%
$0.025
–
by category
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
78.3%
Text localization
20.6%
Reasoning (low)
42.4%
$0.0013
64.2%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9
$0.015
Reasoning (high)
62.3%
$0.011
66.9%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2
$0.024

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7: 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 4.7

Grok 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from SpaceXAI that accepts images alongside text and returns text-only output. On visual inputs it supports image captioning, visual question answering, OCR, document and chart question answering, and image classification and tagging, with all results expressed as generated text rather than bounding boxes or masks. Its 500,000 token context window leaves room for several images, long documents, or extended conversations about visual content in a single request.

The model exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with low, medium, high, and xhigh levels (high by default), letting callers trade latency for the amount of deliberation spent on a prompt, including multi-step questions about an image. Built on a larger base model than Grok 4.6 with extended reinforcement learning on harder tasks, it works longer on difficult problems and checks its own work more carefully at the same serving speed. SpaceXAI's launch materials focus on coding and agentic knowledge work and report no image benchmark results.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.7 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 63.5% (#31 of 63) against 57.6% (#40 of 63) 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 4.7 leads with 64.2% 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 $0.0051 per sample against $0.020. Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.7 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 6.8s per inference against 33.3s. 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.