Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 12B side-by-side.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B 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 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B: Overview
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Google DeepMind in the Gemini 3 series, based on the Gemini 3 Pro architecture. It processes text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs within a 1 million token context window and produces text output up to 64K tokens. The model targets high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads and supports visual question answering, image and document data extraction, content moderation, classification, translation, automated speech recognition, and agentic data pipelines. It exposes configurable thinking levels of minimal, low, medium, and high, which set the depth of internal reasoning applied per request and let developers balance response quality against cost and latency.
On benchmarks reported at launch, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite scores 86.9% on GPQA Diamond and 76.8% on the MMMU Pro multimodal benchmark, and reaches an Elo score of 1432 on the Arena.ai leaderboard. According to Artificial Analysis benchmarks, it produces a 2.5 times faster time to first answer token and a 45% increase in output speed relative to Gemini 2.5 Flash. It also shows improved instruction following, higher audio input quality for automated speech recognition tasks, and support for structured JSON output used in data extraction pipelines.
Gemma 4 12B is an open-weight multimodal model from Google in the Gemma 4 family. It is intended for text and image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, OCR, captioning, and document understanding, with a smaller parameter footprint than the larger Gemma 4 variants.
This entry is connected to Roboflow Playground vision evals for comparison. No runnable Playground workflow is configured yet, so the model page is used for discovery and benchmark context rather than direct hosted inference.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | 6.88s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.96% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.32s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 10 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 91.9%(91/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 100%(30/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | |
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