Roboflow

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.6

Compare Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Grok 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.6 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 20.2%.

Overall, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite averages 69.6% (#15 of 28) against 67.8% (#16 of 28) for Grok 4.6.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is both cheaper ($0.0014 vs $0.0069 per sample) and faster (2.7s vs 7.4s per sample).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.6

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 12, 2026Pricing updated August 13, 2026

PropertyGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGrok 4.6
OrganizationGoogleSpaceXAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Aug 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%
67.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0014$0.0069
Avg speed / sample2.70s7.39s
By task
Object Detection
57.5%
$0.0023
20.2%
$0.0068
Counting
52.7%
$0.0007
70.3%
$0.0074
Identification
81.3%
$0.0004
78.1%
$0.0048
OCR
87.4%
$0.0011
92.0%
$0.0086
Data Extraction
90.7%
$0.0004
84.5%
$0.0042
Reasoning (low)
48.3%
$0.0012
61.6%
$0.0087
Reasoning (high)
68.9%
$0.0042
61.6%
$0.027

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Grok 4.6: 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 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family rather than producing pixel level outputs such as boxes or masks.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

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% (#15 of 28) against 67.8% (#16 of 28) for Grok 4.6. 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 20.2%. 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 $0.0069. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is priced at $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $2.50 per 1M output; Grok 4.6 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 7.4s. 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.