Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs SAM 3
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and SAM 3 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection.
Compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs SAM 3 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
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs SAM 3: 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.
Released on November 19th, 2025, Segment Anything 3 (SAM 3) is a zero-shot image segmentation model that “detects, segments, and tracks objects in images and videos based on concept prompts.” This model was developed by Meta as the third model in the Segment Anything series.
Unlike its previous SAM models (Segment Anything and Segment Anything 2), you can provide SAM 3 with the prompt “shipping container” and it will generate precise segmentation masks for all shipping containers in an image. SAM 3 generates segmentation masks that correspond to the location of the objects found with a text prompt.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs SAM 3 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | SAM 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Mar 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.250 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.50 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| Video Object Tracking | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.86s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 6 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 84.2%(16/19) | |
| 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