Gemini 2.5 Pro vs PaliGemma
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and PaliGemma side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 2.5 Pro vs PaliGemma live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs PaliGemma: 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.
PaliGemma is a vision-language model released in May 2024 by Google, built by pairing the SigLIP-So400m vision encoder with the Gemma 2B language model. It is designed primarily as a compact, transfer-friendly base model for fine-tuning to downstream vision-language tasks, rather than as a chat-optimized assistant. PaliGemma draws architectural inspiration from the PaLI-3 model at Google Research, applying a similar encoder-decoder approach at a smaller and more accessible parameter scale.
PaliGemma accepts an image together with a text prompt and generates text output, supporting image captioning, visual question answering, optical character recognition, object detection, referring expression segmentation, and a range of related vision-language tasks when fine-tuned on task-specific data. The model is released at three input resolutions (224, 448, and 896 pixels), with higher resolutions providing stronger performance on tasks requiring fine visual detail such as OCR and document understanding. Google released pretrained (PT) checkpoints intended as fine-tuning bases, along with Mix variants that have been fine-tuned on a mixture of downstream tasks for direct use without additional training. PaliGemma is distributed under the Gemma license, a custom license from Google that permits commercial use subject to the terms of the Gemma Prohibited Use Policy. It was succeeded by PaliGemma 2 in December 2024, which extends the architecture to larger Gemma 2 language backbones at 3B, 10B, and 28B parameter sizes.
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs PaliGemma Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 2.5 Pro | PaliGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2025 | May 2024 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 3B | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.25 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | 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 | 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) | |
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