Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.5
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash and Grok 4.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Image Captioning, and OCR.
Compare Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.5 on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 56.0% to 18.0%.
Overall, Gemini 3.6 Flash averages 83.1% (#5 of 30) against 64.3% (#25 of 30) for Grok 4.5.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0032 vs $0.0077 per sample) and faster (4.7s vs 14.3s per sample).
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Grok 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.750 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.75 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | 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 | 83.1% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0032 | $0.0077 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.73s | 14.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 56.0% $0.0041 | 18.0% $0.0100 |
| Counting | 82.4% $0.0032 | 55.4% $0.0065 |
| Identification | 96.9% $0.0015 | 78.1% $0.0045 |
| OCR | 88.4% $0.0025 | 92.5% $0.0065 |
| Data Extraction | 94.8% $0.0015 | 83.5% $0.0044 |
| Reasoning (low) | 80.1% $0.0031 | 58.3% $0.0076 |
| Reasoning (high) | 80.1% $0.0085 | 59.6% $0.011 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.5: Overview
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
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 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.1% (#5 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 3.6 Flash leads with 56.0% against 18.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0032 per sample against $0.0077. Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 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 3.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.7s 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 open prompts and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.