Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemini 3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Compare image classification labels and confidence scores side-by-side.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.7 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Gemini 3.7 Flash leads 82.8% to 48.3%.
Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#16 of 30) against 84.6% (#2 of 30) for Gemini 3.7 Flash.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0016 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 10.0s per sample).
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Gemini 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | ||
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Undisclosed | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.375 |
| Output $/1M | $2.50 | $1.88 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.6% | 84.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0014 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 2.70s | 9.97s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 57.5% $0.0023 | 69.4% $0.0024 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0007 | 77.0% $0.0013 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0004 | 96.9% $0.0007 |
| OCR | 87.4% $0.0011 | 86.9% $0.0014 |
| Data Extraction | 90.7% $0.0004 | 94.8% $0.0007 |
| Reasoning (low) | 48.3% $0.0012 | 82.8% $0.0011 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0042 | 82.1% $0.0026 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overview
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is a natively multimodal reasoning model developed by Google DeepMind, released on July 21, 2026 as part of the Gemini 3.5 model family. It is the fastest model in the 3.5 series, designed for both low-latency tasks and high-throughput production workloads such as agentic search, document processing, receipt translation, and large-scale data extraction. The model accepts text, images, audio, and video as inputs, with a context window of up to 1 million tokens, and produces text output. It supports configurable thinking levels, allowing developers to tune the balance between response quality, cost, and latency depending on workload requirements.
On agentic and coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms its predecessor, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, including on Terminal-Bench 2.1 (54% vs. 31%), GDM-MRCR v2 long-context (72.2% vs. 60.1%), and real-world task execution as measured by GDPval-AA v2 (1140 vs. 642). It also surpasses Gemini 3 Flash on SWE-Bench Pro (54.2% vs. 49.6%) and OSWorld-Verified (74.0% vs. 65.1%). According to the Artificial Analysis Index, the model generates output at approximately 350 tokens per second. It is built on the Gemini 3.5 Flash foundation and is evaluated across reasoning, coding, multimodal understanding, multilingual performance, and long-context tasks. The model is developed under Google's Frontier Safety Framework.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary multimodal model from Google, positioned in the Flash branch of the Gemini 3 series that trades some of the capacity of the larger Pro models for lower latency and lower cost per token. It accepts interleaved text and image input alongside other modalities handled by the Gemini family and returns text, and it continues the series pattern of exposing a configurable thinking budget so that reasoning effort can be scaled up for harder problems or reduced for high throughput extraction, routing and classification work. The model is announced roughly three weeks after Gemini 3.6 Flash, part of an unusually fast iteration cadence within the Flash line.
Google reports gains concentrated in agentic coding and front end generation, citing a WebDev Arena Elo of 1588 for this release compared with 1538 for the preceding Flash model, and describes it as producing more functional layouts and more feature complete applications in fewer prompts. Weights are not published and the architecture, parameter count and training corpus are undisclosed, consistent with prior Gemini releases. Visual capability follows the Flash lineage, covering image and document understanding, chart and diagram interpretation, text recognition in images, and general visual question answering.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.7 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.6% (#2 of 30) against 69.6% (#16 of 30) for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. 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, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads with 82.8% against 48.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0014 per sample against $0.0016. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Gemini 3.7 Flash is priced at $0.38 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 10.0s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.