Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.5

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.5 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 Grok 4.5 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.

Open Classification in the full playground
GoogleGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
GrokGrok 4.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads 57.5% to 18.0%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#16 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 14.3s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.5

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.5
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Jul 2026
Context Window1.0M500K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.300$2.00
Output $/1M$2.50$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
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%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0077
Avg speed / sample2.70s14.33s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
18.0%
$0.0100
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
55.4%
$0.0065
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
78.1%
$0.0045
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
92.5%
$0.0065
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
83.5%
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
58.3%
$0.0076
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
59.6%
$0.011

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.5: Overview

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

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.

Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.

For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#16 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads with 57.5% against 18.0%. 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 $0.0077. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Grok 4.5 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 3.5 Flash-Lite is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 2.7s per inference against 14.3s. 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 image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.