Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7
Grok 4.7 and Gemini 2.5 Pro score 63.5% vs 57.6% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#33 and #42 of 65 models), so Grok 4.7 leads overall.
- Grok 4.7 wins 3 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (64.2% vs 42.4%).
- Gemini 2.5 Pro is about a quarter of the cost: $0.0051 vs $0.020 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster: 6.8s vs 33.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7 on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 6, 2026
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not 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 / sample | 6.83s | 33.31s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 33.7% | 40.4% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.8 to 41.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 41.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 39.6 to 42.8 |
| Counting (low) | 52.7% | 61.7% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 63.5 |
| Counting (high) | – | 60.8% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 62.2 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 65.2% | 63.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 64.6% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 42.4% | 64.2% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% | 66.9% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 68.2 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Grok 4.7: 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.
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 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% (#33 of 65) against 57.6% (#42 of 65) 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.